Illegal AR-15 to M-16 conversions


PDA






WhiteKnight
March 12, 2006, 04:12 PM
I see replacement M-16 parts for sale online all the time with no restrictions on purchase. Granted I have little knowledge about the AR system but it seems that these parts are pretty much drop-in and can be accomplished in not a whole lot of time.

Why exactly is this? It seems to me that dozens of full-auto (illegal) conversions have got to by happening every minute.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illegal AR-15 to M-16 conversions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cane
March 12, 2006, 04:14 PM
M-16 parts are not "drop in" conversions for AR-15s. You must do some milling to the lower reciever.

nvshooter
March 12, 2006, 04:33 PM
An M-16 and an AR-15 share a common outward appearance, but the internals are quite different. The fire control group is one such difference. An M-16 has a third hole in the side of the receiver, right above the safety selector. This is where the autosear is. An AR does not have this hole. The autosear needs to have metal machined out of the lower receiver for it to fit into the space directly below the bolt carrier. An AR does not have this space machined and cannot, therefore, have an M-16 autosear dropped in at that point. The bolt carrier of an M-16 varies from that of an AR. An M-16 bolt will function in an AR; an AR bolt will not function fully automatically in an M-16. The trigger parts are different, as well. Triggers, safeties and disconnectors are similar in appearance, but quite different in actual function.

The most important thing to understand about these kits is that owning stuff for an M-16 while in ownership/possession of an AR-15 type rifle is an area of legal ground upon which you'd rather not find yourself. To just have an upper receiver unit with a barrel of less than 16 inches and a complete, functioning lower is a felony, because in the eyes of Big Brother, you "intend" to mate the two and create a Class III weapon. Why keeping a shotgun in the guncase upstairs and a hacksaw downstairs on the tool board is not "intent" to create a sawn-off shotgun, I don't know, but we are talking "the Government" and reasonable, rational thought goes right out the window.

So, keep your money, never mate any M-16 parts that control fire or involve barrel lengths of less than 16 inches to any AR-15, and you'll stay out of trouble.

pcf
March 12, 2006, 05:18 PM
The most important thing to understand about these kits is that owning stuff for an M-16 while in ownership/possession of an AR-15 type rifle is an area of legal ground upon which you'd rather not find yourself. To just have an upper receiver unit with a barrel of less than 16 inches and a complete, functioning lower is a felony, because in the eyes of Big Brother, you "intend" to mate the two and create a Class III weapon. Why keeping a shotgun in the guncase upstairs and a hacksaw downstairs on the tool board is not "intent" to create a sawn-off shotgun, I don't know, but we are talking "the Government" and reasonable, rational thought goes right out the window.

Thompson Center Arms has already taken that case to the Supreme Court and won. The mere possesion of parts that could be assembled into a SBR/SBS/or Machine gun does not constitute the possesion of a SBS/SBR/ machine gun.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=505

nvshooter
March 12, 2006, 05:22 PM
I recall the case being in the papers, but I don't read the liberal media anymore, nor do I watch it on TV. Please throw me a bone here and fill me in a little on what actually went down. I own a T/C Encore rifle (love it, too).

OK, I read most of it. It comes down to just having the parts does not constitute the actual assembling of the parts into a functioning firearm. On its face, one would assume having everything on hand to put together a full-auto AR-15 would not be illegal. But law can be forked in its tongue. The case was about T/C, not about AR versus M-16. If you got snagged on that one, no doubt you'd use the T/C precedent in your defense, but my guess is you'd have to go all the way through the court system, get to SCOTUS and once there, only then would you learn if you're going to jail for a long time or you're back on the firing range.

whm1974
March 12, 2006, 05:33 PM
Thompson Center Arms has already taken that case to the Supreme Court and won. The mere possesion of parts that could be assembled into a SBR/SBS/or Machine gun does not constitute the possesion of a SBS/SBR/ machine gun.

This still doesn't mean that that the ATF will not press charges against someone if he had a complete lower and and upper with a less then 16" barrel. Or he just has some M16 FA parts.

I would play it safe...

-Bill

Gary G23
March 12, 2006, 06:14 PM
"It seems to me that dozens of full-auto (illegal) conversions have got to by happening every minute."
It doesn't happen often because most sane people don't want to spend ten years in the federal pen.

nvshooter
March 12, 2006, 06:14 PM
Bill is right. Why give them an opening?

LaEscopeta
March 12, 2006, 06:38 PM
I see replacement M-16 parts for sale online all the time with no restrictions on purchase. Granted I have little knowledge about the AR system but it seems that these parts are pretty much drop-in and can be accomplished in not a whole lot of time.The following is my incomplete understanding of what an AR-15 and a M-16 are; I would appreciate anyone who can correct/complete my understanding:

Fairchild Industries created the Armalite division to use their knowledge and skills in precision machining of lightweight high-strength materials for aircraft in the design and construction of firearms, particularly for the military. Armalite developed a .223 caliber select fire rifle that they called the AR-15. This weapon was chosen in the mid-sixties by the U.S. military as their new main rifle, and the U.S. Military called it the M-16. Armalite made a civilian of their AR-15 that was semi-auto only, for sale to the public. This original semi-auto AR-15 COULD be modified to select fire (choice between semi or full auto) with just a single drop in part. Fairchild decide to get out of the small-arms biz, and sold the design, rights and parents for the original AR-15/M-16 to Colt, who has made most of the M-16s over the years. The patents for the original AR-15/M-16 have since expired, and now everyone and his brother (Bushmaster, Rock River arms, etc) can make rifles based on this design for sale to the general public. However these rifles made now-a-days, that are called AR-15s, have DIFFERENT lower receivers and fire control mechanisms then the original design AR-15 and the true M-16. As outlined in the above post by nvshooter you can not just drop M-16 parts into the new style AR-15s and have them be fill auto.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge then me can correct the above; I’m here to learn.

On a slightly different matter:

To just have an upper receiver unit with a barrel of less than 16 inches and a complete, functioning lower is a felony, because in the eyes of Big Brother, you "intend" to mate the two and create a Class III weapon. Why keeping a shotgun in the gun case upstairs and a hacksaw downstairs on the tool board is not "intent" to create a sawn-off shotgun, I don't know…To my mind, the hacksaw can be used for a lot of different things, but upper part of AR-15 or M-16 with a barrel less then 16 inches can only serve a useful function when it is mated with a fully functioning lower, and becomes a NFA Class III short-barrel-rifle. (A 16” upper may have a collector’s or historic value by itself, but not a useful value.) I’m still trying to wade through the legal language in the SCOTUS case in the link above, but it appears the government has to prove you have assembled a short barrel rifle out of the pieces you own before you can be convicted.

Hkmp5sd
March 12, 2006, 06:49 PM
The mere possesion of parts that could be assembled into a SBR/SBS/or Machine gun does not constitute the possesion of a SBS/SBR/ machine gun.


but it appears the government has to prove you have assembled a short barrel rifle out of the pieces you own before you can be convicted.

Bad news boys, but you are very much wrong. The T/C case is an exception to the rule. ATF does consider having the parts to assemble an illegal weapon the same as having assembled that weapon and the courts do back them.

Read a few of these:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter52.txt

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter55.txt

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter66.txt

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter90.txt

nvshooter
March 12, 2006, 06:53 PM
About the only difference in the lowers is the machining where the autosear would go. The original ARs had the machining done, but the hole wasn't drilled. Semi-auto fire was achieved by the use of semi-auto parts. To get full-auto, just drill the little hole, drop in the auto parts and empty magazines. That all changed with later versions. Now, the machining isn't done and any shop you take it to is going to ask you some very pointed questions if you don't have an approved Form 4. There was something in the early 1980s called the "drop-in autosear." It was a small assemblage of parts that replicated the original M-16 autosear. It came in one piece; you just dropped it into the upper and fired away with the usual complement of M-16 parts. BATF said it was a machinegun in and of itself, and banned it as of Novemeber 1, 1981. You still see them being sold as "pre-81 autosears," but save your money. You may never get one. If you do, it may be cheap junk. If you do, the BATF will storm your house 15 minutes after you get it and have subsequently put it in your rifle.

Another difference is that Colt has gone to a slightly larger pin diameter for the hammer and trigger pins. I guess this is to keep people from putting aftermarket trigger groups into Colt lowers and thereby exposing Colt to some kind of third-party liability in the event some crazy shoots up a schoolyard or something.

I feel it's time for me to head out into the desert and do some shooting. I love Nevada-- I am just five minutes from open desert and thousands of empty acres on which to blast away. And no one will give me any guff about the color of my guns...

WhiteKnight
March 13, 2006, 05:31 PM
Another difference is that Colt has gone to a slightly larger pin diameter for the hammer and trigger pins. I guess this is to keep people from putting aftermarket trigger groups into Colt lowers and thereby exposing Colt to some kind of third-party liability in the event some crazy shoots up a schoolyard or something.

Do you mean "aftermarket trigger groups" as in Jewells or National Match AR-15 replacements or illegal M16 parts?

kfranz
March 13, 2006, 05:35 PM
Why exactly is this? It seems to me that dozens of full-auto (illegal) conversions have got to by happening every minute.

You've bought into the big lie... :(

WhiteKnight
March 13, 2006, 05:38 PM
You've bought into the big lie...

Actually one isn't buying into anything if he asks knowledgeable folk for the truth the first possible moment.

kfranz
March 13, 2006, 05:43 PM
I took your comments to mean that different small steel pieces made things bad.

Carl N. Brown
March 13, 2006, 06:11 PM
I have seem M16 partsets without the M16 lower receiver
advertised for sale.

M16 parts sets (outside the fire control parts) can be used
to build perfectly legal semi-auto AR15 style rifles with a
AR15 lower receiver. There are five critical M16 parts that
should not used in an AR15 build. M16 bolt carrier and
hammer are two. M16 hammer I believe can be CUT to AR15
hammer configuration losing the projections that engage the
autosear. There are AR15 buffs who know more about this
than I do, but possession of an M16 parts set is not necessarily
proof of constructive possession of an illegal M16: it may mean
constructive possession of a legal AR15.

Now, possession of a CAR15 14 inch barrel upper and an
AR15 lower without a pre-approved ATF Form 1 to make
a Short Barrel Rifle is a BIG no-no.

Byron Quick
March 13, 2006, 06:17 PM
WhiteKnight,

The way you phrased your initial comments about many illegal auto weapons being made is exactly how gun grabbers present the issue. That's most likely why kfranz responded as he did.

A question of semantics. Gun grabbers froth about high capacity magazines. I never use the term. I prefer to refer to standard capacity magazines versus reduced capacity magazines or neutered magazines.


In any debate, using the terminology introduced by your opponent is most likely a bad tactical move.

Carl N. Brown
March 13, 2006, 06:24 PM
The Thompson Center case covered kits for converting a
Thompson center pistol tio a single shot rifle. Even though
you could theoretically assemble the shoulder stock to the
frame with the pistol barrel in place giving a "short
barrel rifle" the Supremes felt that drime use of single shot
pistols, single shot rifles and singleshot Short Barrel Rifles
is so minimal that allowing Thompson Center owners to
convet single shot pistols to single shot rifles and back
again would not mean the end of civilization as we know it.

When a gunsmith "retubes" a double barrel or single shot
shotgun, he is temporarily in possession of a Short Barrel
Shotgun SBS or "sawn-off gangster weapon from hades...
with PMS." Usually they silver solder new tubes to the
monoblock and nobody knows or cares.

pcf
March 13, 2006, 07:15 PM
Carl,
The ATF, Supreme Court, nor the NFA make any distinction between single shot firearms, and semi auto ones. Read the case, particularly the dissent, and you should see that no consideration was given to TC on the basis that it was a single shot.

Hkmp5sd,
Can you provide a courtcase(s) where someone has been convicted under the NFA for possesing parts for a SBR/SBS/Machine gun?

blackhawk2000
March 13, 2006, 07:28 PM
As I understand it an M16 bolt carrier is perfectly legal to install in an AR15.

mototard
March 13, 2006, 07:55 PM
The BATF states that if with one pull of the trigger more than one round can be fired then it constitutes a machine gun. Just a M16 bolt carrier in a AR15 there is no way it can fire FA. Also a M16 bolt carrier, M16 hammer, M16 trigger, and M16 disconnector in an AR15 it still is imposible to fire FA. To fire full auto you would need a M16 sear and a M16 selector which would let the M16 disconnector do its job, With out the selector there is no way an AR15 can fire FA. The selector lets the disconnect change position so that the hammer can catch on the auto sear. So as long as you do not have a M16 selector or sear then there is NO WAY an AR 15 can fire more than one round per trigger pull. Just to add a M16 sear to an Ar 15 lower receiver would take lots of milling (sear block removed and on some lowers self height lowered) then you would still have to find the measurments to drill the sear pin hole. Its not like you could take a dremel and grind the thing out. Well if you wanted to waste 10 to 15 lower receiver then maybe you would get lucky. Also some upper receivers are not relieved for the auto sear so then maybe 10 to 15 uppers you might get it right. By then you would have saved money by buying a legal register machine gun. Which is legal in most state. As for the under 16" barrel I do have a Registered AR pistol receiver that is legal to put short barrels on, BUT you better not put a stock on it or is would be a short barreled rifle. Gun laws are very finiky I would chance any of them. Play it safe.

LooseGrouper
March 13, 2006, 08:27 PM
I know there is some dispute as to whether owning all the parts for a SBR is illegal or not. For the moment, lets suppose those on the "yes, it's illegal" side are right...

What happens if you already own ARs and then go buy one of those nifty little AR pistols? Doesn't this basically give you the parts to easily make an SBR? I'm not much of an AR guy, so for all I know the uppers on those may not work on the standard AR lower.

Hkmp5sd
March 13, 2006, 08:38 PM
What happens if you already own ARs and then go buy one of those nifty little AR pistols?

Here's ATF's ruling on multiple uppers. I own a Colt M16A1 and a Colt AR-15. ATF has informed me that I can own one <16" upper for use on my M16 because as a machinegun, barrel length does not matter. However, ATF says that if I own *2* <16" uppers and possess *1* AR-15, I am in possession of a unregistered SBR, whether or not I ever put the short upper on the AR. Mere possession is enough.

In addition, if you own a machinegun, it is legal to possess replacement parts for that machinegun, including the full auto trigger group. I have a complete set for my Cobray M11/9 submachinegun. Yet, ATF has ruled that even though I own a M16A1, due to the fact I own an AR-15, if I possess full auto replacement parts for my M16A1, I am in possession of an unregistered machinegun. On the other hand, my parents do not own any AR-15 rifles and can therefore own as many M16 spare parts as they desire. The spare parts alone are not illegal to possess.

Doesn't matter if they are assembled....merely owning the parts to do so it enough for ATF.

Can you provide a courtcase(s) where someone has been convicted under the NFA for possesing parts for a SBR/SBS/Machine gun?

Nope. The reason for getting a ruling from ATF is avoid that and most people that go to the trouble of getting NFA weapons are very careful to avoid being a test case.

With out the selector there is no way an AR15 can fire FA.

The problem is that while there may be no way for you to make it go FA, if ATF takes it into their possession and can manipulate it to fire 2 rounds with one trigger pull, you are in possession of an unregistered machinegun. This is one reason why they are trying to require ATF to video tape every firearm they are testing.

mototard
March 13, 2006, 10:38 PM
QUOTE
The problem is that while there may be no way for you to make it go FA, if ATF takes it into their possession and can manipulate it to fire 2 rounds with one trigger pull, you are in possession of an unregistered machinegun. This is one reason why they are trying to require ATF to video tape every firearm they are testing

Now thats just stupid. Hell the ATF (or any half ass gunsmith wanna be) could take any semi weopon from a 10/22 to a glock and make it fire FA. If its come to that its time to march on D.C. and demand our country back. I hope theres not a Judge/jury that would fall for that, but we do have some pretty gun stupid people out there. If that is the case then all semi auto pistol & rifle owners have possible "manipulated" machine guns I hope what you said about whoever trying to force the ATF to video every firearm test comes to pass, because any confiscated semi weapon could me made to fire at least 2 rounds due to slam firing. What have we let our goverment do to us :cuss:
edit
Sorry Hkmp5sd I reread my post and hope you didnt think I was calling you stupid. I meant the idea of the ATF secret manipulation of firearms in a court case. Do you have a case reference on that?

444
March 14, 2006, 01:56 AM
This question comes up on this board a lot.

Contrary to what you might have been led to believe, it is perfectly legal under federal law to own an M16. There are plenty of people that do. I bought one within the last couple weeks. And, If I need parts for it, I can buy them. And that is also perfectly legal.
All these qeustions arise from the mistaken idea that it is illegal to own a select fire or full auto weapon. If it is illegal to own a machine gun, then why isn't it illegal to own the parts ? Obviously, the answer is that it isn't illegal to own either one. Never has been. Not even for one day. Since the invention of full auto, it has been legal each and every day to own them in the United States.
It is also perfectly legal to own short barreled rifles as well as the parts to build a short barreled rifle. Always has been.

mototard
March 14, 2006, 07:58 AM
I wish you were 100% right. In my state registered machine guns are legal, Suppressor/silencers are legal, AOW are legal, Bur SBR arent not allowed. Now how stupid is that. How can a state ban something that the federal law says I can have if I pass their background check? Same as the states that kept the AWB?

Carl N. Brown
March 14, 2006, 11:04 AM
ATF told NRA years ago that AR15 builds cannot have the FA parts
that would enable the gun to fire full auto with a drop-in auto sear
(carrier, hammer, disconnect, etc), even tho' the drop-in autoi sear
is serially numbered and registered as a machinegun itself. This info
may be dated and ATF may have a different position today.

This is why it is always good on NFA questions to write the BATFE
Firearms and Technology Branch and get a written letter and keep
it, as I did on the question of an original C96 Mauser with modern
replica holster-stock. I keep a copy of the letter in the lining of the
gun case with my C96.

Hkmp5sd
March 14, 2006, 06:42 PM
mototard,


Read this: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=162650

mototard
March 14, 2006, 11:50 PM
Thanks
That was an eye opener for sure.
And I'm not even Jewish :-)

Shootcraps
March 15, 2006, 12:04 AM
Doesn't matter if they are assembled....merely owning the parts to do so it enough for ATF.

I don't understand this. My friend (who works at a gun store) bought an AR15 upper with 11" barrel at the gun show. After he had possession, he sent in the forms to register the lower so he could put them together. I've heard from others at stores and shows that possession is not illegal without the registration, as long as you don't put them together. :confused:

Hkmp5sd
March 15, 2006, 06:42 PM
Did he leave the gun at the store until the forms cleared? If not, he was in violation and could be charged with an unregistered SBR. ATF is not shy about saying this. They will tell you up front that possession of the parts to assemble illegal firearm is good enough for them. Don't take my word for it, write to their Technical Branch and ask. They are more than happy to answer questions.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS
WASHINGTON, DC 20226

MAR 25 1999 903050:CHB
3311


Dear Mr. :

This refers to your letter in which you asked about possession of
spare M-16 machinegun parts by a person who possesses a registered
M-16 and a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle..
.
.
.
A person who possesses a registered M-16 machinegun and
a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle and a separate quantity of M-16
machinegun components could be in possession of two machineguns.
..
.
.
We would advise any person who possesses an AR-15 rifle not to
possess M-16 fire control component. If a person possessed only
the M-16 machinegun and spare M-16 fire control components for that
machinegun, the person would possess only one machinegun.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter52.txt

Mere possession....

4. Can you have several short barrel uppers (less than 16 inches)
for the registered AR and still own semi-auto AR's?

The definition of a firearm in section 5845 of the NFA includes a
rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.
An individual possessing more than one short (less than 16 inches)
barreled upper receiver for a registered AR15 machinegun along with
one or more semiautomatic AR15 rifles would have under their
possession of control an unregistered short barreled rifle, a
violation of the NFA.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter90.txt

Mere possession.....

gunsmith
March 16, 2006, 07:30 AM
darn bureacrats! they can mess up a dream about Jessica Simpson.

I'm guessing when I take my friends AK and pull it forward while keeping my finger stiff on the trigger and it goes rat a tat tat and empties the mag faster then I can pull the trigger, I'm breaking the dang law?

lightweight
March 16, 2006, 08:53 AM
There are five critical M16 parts that
should not used in an AR15 build. M16 bolt carrier and
hammer are two.



If this were true Colt would be in trouble for shipping 6920 W/m-16 bolt and carriers.:uhoh:

Master Blaster
March 16, 2006, 09:27 AM
Illegal dont do it, posted for informational purposes to help law abiding ar owners keep from breaking the law.So as long as you do not have a M16 selector or sear then there is NO WAY an AR 15 can fire more than one round per trigger pull.

You are 100% wrong. Even a colt can be made to fire FA with a simple piece of sheet metal.

Note this is illegal and I advise anyone not to even think of doing it.

There is something called a "lightning link" which is simply a 10 cent piece of sheet metal that holds the disconector back on a semi auto ar and causes it to fire full auto. They are Illegal so dont try it. If you do a search on the internet you will probably find plans for it.

Posession of the lightning link and an AR can earn you 10 years in jail.

Illegal dont do it, posted for informational purposes to help law abiding ar owners keep from breaking the law.

Ascot500
March 16, 2006, 10:17 AM
Does anyone have any idea how often, if ever, arrests are made for violation of NFA laws?
You watch any action movie and you think that there must be a cottage industry of full auto supplier for the gangs.
Is the ATF actively pursuing this?
I don't seem to read about arrests.

Any lawyers out there?

deadin
March 16, 2006, 11:32 AM
444,
Since the invention of full auto, it has been legal each and every day to own them in the United States.

Come on up here to Washington state and explain this to our AG.:D :cuss:

Dean

444
March 16, 2006, 06:27 PM
"There is something called a "lightning link" which is simply a 10 cent piece of sheet metal that holds the disconector back on a semi auto ar and causes it to fire full auto. They are Illegal so dont try it. "

This is not true. Lightning Links are perfectly legal. If you choose to make a new one today, THAT would be illegal unless you are a licenced manufacturer, but you can go out and buy a legal transferable lightning link quite easily. And, they don't work on all Colts or even most Colts.

For those of you that have state or local laws against owning this stuff, that is too bad. I feel for you. But that doesn't mean you can make blanket statements on a worldwide forum that these things are illegal. You are wrong. Nearly anything on earth is illegal somewhere. Some idiot has made a law against almost everything somewhere. There are places where it is illegal to buy a new 30 round magazine. There are places where it is illegal to own a handgun of any kind. There are places where certain dog breeds are illegal. There are places where it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk. Does that mean that the people that live there should make blanket statements to a world wide audience every chance they get saying that these things are illegal, period ?
In my opinion, it is ignorant and irresponsible. And, it is working against the RKBA. My dad used to always tell me: "People may think you are an idiot, but don't open your mouth and prove it to them". I think that applies here.
A lot of people on this board spend a lot of time trying to discourage people from exercising their right to buy certain firearms and firearm accessories. They accomplish this by spread misinformation based on absolutely nothing. 99.9% of the posts you read regarding NFA weapons come from people who don't own NFA weapons and never have owned an NFA weapon. They tell you they are illegal, they tell you the process is super complicated, they tell you that owning an NFA weapon will result in the ATF making inspections on your house without a warrant etc. They back none of this up with references or any personal experience. It is just something they read on an online forum. Let me give you a piece of advice: Most of them don't know what they are talking about. You should respond to every post by asking about their personal experience in the matter that qualifies them to answer the question in the first place.


FWIW, I got a PM a few months ago from another guy on this very board. He told me that he always believed that owning NFA weapons was so complicated that he never seriously considered it. He said that he read a post, written by me, disputing these so called facts posted by some clown on this board. I said that it was easy to own NFA weapons etc. He decided to look into it for himself instead of relying on the BS posted here. Guess what ? He now owns an NFA weapon and PMed me to thank me for making it possible: he would have never actually tried if he hadn't read one of my posts. I appreciate that. Hopefully, we can educate more of the gun owning community instead of spreading BS.

Jim Watson
March 16, 2006, 06:56 PM
The key thing to me is that it is not legal for me, a US citizen, to buy a fully automatic firearm made since 1986. I do not consider being graciously allowed to pay ever-increasing scalpers' prices for guns 20+ years old to be a real comprehensive right.

444
March 16, 2006, 07:05 PM
It isn't a right because you arn't willing to pay what it costs ?
Yeah, that makes sense.

I really want a BMW M5, but I don't have the right as a US citizen to own one. Why ? Because I am not willing to pay the price that they are selling for. And, I am going to make sure everyone on the internet knows that I don't have that right. :rolleyes:

Hkmp5sd
March 16, 2006, 08:27 PM
I really, really want a FN P90. Price doesn't matter. It's the '86 FOPA that is killing me. Doing the NFA thing isn't all that much of a problem. I just wish we could get new machineguns.

444
March 16, 2006, 09:08 PM
I really wish we could too. But, I don't see it happening. The Republicans are way to far to the left to let that happen.

Let me waste your time with a little made-up story to illustrate my point about the legality of NFA weapons. Let's say that I came from a place so remote that I didn't know anything about "civilization" other than the fact that I am fluent in the English language. I somehow get aquainted with you and we have the following conversation:
Hey, I see these things going up and down the roads called cars. I want one. Can I have one ?
Sure, most everybody has one. They are perfectly legal for anyone to own.
Great, where do I go and get mine ?
Well, they don't just give them away, you have to buy them. They cost money.
How much money ?
Well, they ain't cheap. Even a good used car is going to cost thousands.
Wow, I thought if I wanted one that was all it took to get one.
No way, and that's just the beginning. After you buy it, you have to pay sales tax on it. On a relatively new vehicle that will be thousands.
Sales tax ? What for ?
It is money you pay to the government that is in addition to the price of the car. Who knows exactly what you are paying it for, but you have to pay it if you want to buy anything.
I don't know much about taxes, but from what I have heard up until now, I don't believe in them. I think they are nothing but extortion. If owning a car is legal, why do I have to pay them off ?
I don't know, but everyone that owns a car bought into it.
Then you have to register it. In some states that is thousands, every year. Registration is where you give the government all kinds of personal information like what kind of car you have, where you live and stuff like that. You have to pay for it and I have no idea what you get in return for the money other than a cheap aluminum plate that you are required to mount on the car even if you think it looks like hell on your new car. Oh, wait, I forgot something else, before you can register it, you have to buy insurance. On a new car, that will also be thousands a year.
Holy liability Batman, what's insurance ?
Well, at a minimum, it will pay for someone's bodily injury and the damage to their vehicle if the two of you have an accident.
The hell with them. I am not paying to take care of them.
Oh yes you will, if you want to drive.
But I thought you said that driving was legal ?
It is, but the government regulates it. Almost every aspect of it. There is almost nothing about driving that isn't regulated and very little that isn't taxed.
Ok, so if I pay all that, then I can drive my car ?
Oh no. You still don't have a drivers license. That requires a written test, a vision test, and you have to pay for that also. The best part is that when you are paying all this money and taking these tests you have to wait in lines with a bunch of trolls and the people working there are rude.
But all this is legal ?
Yup.
I don't see how anybody can buy a car or drive if you have to do all that stuff.
Well, most people do. In fact, most of the people I know have a car for every member of the family that is of driving age and a lot of them have more cars than that. They have stuff like sports cars, off road cars and stuff like that that they own just for fun in addition to the cars they use to go to work and to go shopping. Even the people I know that live close to work and to stores own cars. Even if the government provides safe and reliable public transportation, most people still own a car. Jumping through all those hoops and paying all that money is worth it to them for various reasons.
Hell, If you want to do something that is far easier, and costs way less money, buy a machine gun.

So what is the moral to the story ?
1) Just because something costs money doesn't make it illegal.
2) Just because you can't afford it doesn't make it illegal. Obviously there are plenty of people that CAN afford machine guns because the price keeps going up. That means there is strong demand.
3) Just because something is regulated by the government doesn't mean it is illegal.
4) Just because the government taxes something doesn't make it illegal.
5) Just because something isn't simple doesn't make it illegal
6) You already pay FAR more money and jumpt trough FAR more hoops to own a car than you would to own a machine gun/suppressor/SBR/SBS/lightning link/drop in auto sear/.................................
7) You posting that something is illegal on the internet doesn't make it so.
8) If you don't know what you are talking about, don't bother to post. If you just want to read your own writing on line, then post to the threads about shooting monsters, or the every-other-day threads about shooting dogs. BUT, don't post advice about real issues unless you REALLY know what you are talking about. Experience required. This means that just because you "heard something" or you read a post on-line, you are NOT knowlegable about the issue and are not adding anything to the conversation.

Jim Watson
March 16, 2006, 09:45 PM
444,
You miss my point. It is not what I am willing to pay, it is what I get for my money.
There is no price tag on a P90 for Hkmp5sd.

I expect there are some people who think that there should be a horsepower limit and that you should not be able to buy a new 200+ hp sportscar, only only one with antique tags. The car analogy does not hold up in the present market.

444
March 17, 2006, 01:12 AM
"You miss my point. It is not what I am willing to pay, it is what I get for my money. "

You are right. I guess I don't see what your point is.
I know what NFA weapons cost.
I am willing to pay the price.
Machine Guns are expensive WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER CONVENTIONAL FIREARMS such as those sold at your local gun shop or Wal-Mart.
However, they ARE NOT expensive when compared to other, more mainstream hobby/leisure/neat toy expenditures. Let me qualify that statement a little bit. I live in Las Vegas. People here are not conservative with their spending. I grew up in rural Ohio and I know that people there don't think like the people here. So, I realize my viewpoint is skewed from some other people on this board. I also have a pretty decent job. Many of the people that I associate with have decent jobs and their wives also have pretty decent jobs. In other words, they are not eating Ramen to hold them over till payday, but they also are by no means rich or anything. That being said, pretty much everyone I know, owns toy/toys that are far more expensive than most machine guns. I have a number of friends with boats. I have a number of friends with motorhomes. I have a number of friends that own sports cars. I work with three different guys that have honest to God race cars with sponsors, but they also pay a lot of the expenses themselves. I have a number of friends that are part owners in airplanes. I have friends that travel extensively and stay at plush resorts. I have friends that own ATVs and sand rails along with a travel trailer/toy hauler to take them and their family to the sand dunes to ride them. I have friends that own whatever the coolest/fastest motorcycles that are out there. Half the guys I work with (hundreds) own Harleys and most of them are highly customized. I work with guys that have all that stuff and a half dozen kids. I know guys that have house payments that are over $4000/month. I know guys that have season tickets to NFL games that reqire them to fly to every game. Heck, if you go to Disneyland for a few days with a couple kids and stay in the park you are probably going to come close to spending as much as a cheap machine gun for that short little trip.
None of this matters to me. Why ? Because those arn't my hobbies. I am interested in other things. Namely, guns. That is what I spend my fun money on. Not too long ago, I bought a Colt M16. It cost about the same as a Harley. It cost about 1/3 as much as a Corvette. Maybe a fourth as much as a cheap motorhome. Far less than two top of the line quads.
Bottom line: machine guns are cheap compared to common recreation items. People on this board consider them expensive only because they are comparing them to grandpaw's old squirrel rifle or a Wal-Mart 870.
There is nothing wrong with that: to each their own. Everyone has their own life to lead and everyone has different priorities. I have no problem with any of that. What I do have a problem with is people trying to tell other people that this stuff is illegal, or not worth looking into because YOU can't afford it or don't want to afford it.
If you don't have any NFA weapons, and don't ever intend to buy any NFA weapons because of the cost or whatever reason. Why do you feel drawn to post on threads that are discussing them ? Just so you can tell everyone that you think they are over priced ? Just to moan that you feel our rights are being trampled by the man (duh) ?
This stuff is fun. I want to encourage as many people as I can do become involved. Take your firearms hobby in another direction. Dispel the myth that this stuff is illegal or hard to get. Don't spread false rumors about this stuff. Take this stuff mainstream. Show the people at your local club that responsible gun owners own suppressors and machine guns and short barreled rifles and short barreled shotguns. When you are shooting them at your local club (and having a ball doing it), there will be ignorant people that will come up and accuse you of being a felon, just like happens on this board. This is your chance to try to educate these people that these things are in fact, perfectly legal. Set the record straight. Stop the insanity.
I have said this before, but one of the saddest thing about all this is that back in the days when you could buy new machine guns, a lot of people didn't because they thought they were illegal or because they didn't understand what was inovled or because they were afraid. If they had been educated, that would be all the more people out there that are intelligently opposing these laws not to mention that they would have owned all the more transferable machine guns because they bought them back when you still could get new ones. Instead, they are still passing on the false rumors because they never learned any better. I was one of those people prior to 1986. If I had really known how to go about it, I would have owned plenty of stuff because back then it wasn't very expensive. There was no huge sacrifice. But, I listened to the gunstore commandos and the guys out at the club, that didn't know crap about it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illegal AR-15 to M-16 conversions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!