[loadedround]

I have seen many advertisments on various gun sites (not here on THF) for full auto parts and drilling jigs to convert semi auto's to full autos. Does the BATF often run stings on thesr illegal parts to entrap people willing to buy these items. I'm just curious since I see the same sellers frequently online. I hope this post is proper here and await some knowledgeable replies.

[dprice3844444]

yup

[ClickClickD'oh]

It's no more harassment than the female officers dressed like prostitutes. It's a legitimate tactic for catching people silly enough to think the feds haven't figured out the internet.



PS: You might not want to buy the full auto G3 lowers that keep showing up on Sportsmansguide... just saying...

[CoRoMo]

...run stings on thesr illegal parts...
These tools and parts are not always illegal. If you and I buy them with the intention of doing something illegal, then you're obviously breaking the law. But if you have a legally registered machine gun that needs some replacement parts, or if you are a 07FFL-C2SOT, you might need these tools and parts for legal purposes.
yup
I'd like to read through an example of one. Could you cite please?

[Bubbles]

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f395/OptionX3/IMG_0604.jpg

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93569287/Plea-Agreement-Dodson

[Frank Ettin]

The feds do not have a sense of humor about full auto (or violation of the NFA in general). If your thinking about doing something that might be illegal and are just hoping not to get caught, you might be better off just chewing on some razor blades. If you're thinking about doing something you think might be legal, it would be a good idea to be very, very sure. If you think something is legal, and the feds don't, it'll cost you a lot of time, money and stress, even if you turn out to be correct.

[Midwest]

That $105 would be better spent toward renting a machine gun at a range.

[RatDrall]

It's a legitimate tactic for catching people silly enough to think the feds haven't figured out the internet.

Or to create a criminal out of a naive but otherwise law abiding American who believes that it wouldn't be for sale if it wasn't legal.

[Sambo82]

I wonder how many people have been caught up in these stings who had no idea they were breaking the law. Truth be told I've seen these ads in Shotgun News and thought about getting one for no other purpose but to set it on my desk and tell people what it is, much like an inert grenade. Since I didn't have a weapon that it would fit into I assumed it was legal, until a friend kindly informed me that it was a machinegun. To think that someone like myself, a law abiding, tax paying veteran who has never broken a law in his life could be arrested and lose their firearm rights forever simply because someone at the ATF needed an arrest to validate their career, well it saddens me deeply. I don't see this as akin to a prostitute sting, I see it more like being arrested after buying dinner for who you thought was your girlfriend.

[Davek1977]

If I didn't know cocaine was illegal,and had a kilo on my desk....the DEA wouldn't be overly concerned about my lack of legal knowledge. You may see the two as being distinctly different, but look at it this way...There ARE sites out there where one can procure nearly any illegal drug one can imagine, for delivery to one's home or PO box. Just because something is offered up for sale doesn't mean that item or substance is actually legal. Its far from entrapment, as no one is provoking you into placing the order.....just giving YOU the opportunity to order it on your own. If you are ordering it, you are responsible for determining its legality in your jurisdiction. Ignorance of the law is rarely seen as a valid reason for breaking the law. When it comes down to firearms, one must be especially prudent...my personal opinion is that anyone owning a firearm should at the very least be familiar with the laws regarding them. How many of us own cars....but are oblivious to right of ways, speed limits, insurance regulations, etc? Probably not many....why should guns be given a free pass when it comes to knowing the laws surrounding them? If its in your possession, it's wise to know the legalities of the item. To me, that's just common sense.

[Frank Ettin]

Welcome to real life.

Part of being a responsible adult is having a basic understanding of the law, especially if you're involved with something that is heavily regulated, like guns.

[medalguy]

CoRoMo is right. I have a legal, registered XM16A1 and last year decided I wanted to have a few extra early manufacture parts for it in the event something wore or broke. I had a devil of a time buying the internal parts until I furnished the seller a copy of my amnesty regiatration form. They were very, very cautious about selling them, for good reason.

I'm not so sure the same argument could be made for a DIAS however, since the DIAS IS the machine gun and it requires registration of the single part, but the idea of the legality of parts and jigs is the same.

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

You have some meat that is a bit on the old side, say lunchmeat that you purchased a week ago.

To me, it is better to be SAFE than SORRY.

I would much rather feed my septic tank the meat through my garbage disposer than to risk eating something then have about eight hours of pure hell when my body is trying to cleanse itself out from both ends!

It certainly is something I try to avoid at all costs, going through it once is once too many times, IMHO!

The same goes for anything else.
When in doubt, DO NOT BUY!

[Sambo82]

Yeah... the whole " you should know all the laws already" argument would be valid if firearms laws weren't purposely confusing and impossibly extensive. Very, very few firearm people I have met know that if you place a foregrip on your pistol, you've just broken a law with similar penalties to manufacturing a machinegun.


And no, you can't find a cocaine distributer in a magazine and place an order. And last I checked, the DEA can't bust into your house and send you to prison for a decade simply because you have the cleaning supplies necessary to produce crystal methamphetamine.

Otherwise innocent people DO get caught up in these laws. I otherwise have tremendous respect for our LEO community, but the enforcement of these laws I believe is a black blight on their honor.

[Frank Ettin]

Yeah... the whole " you should know all the laws already" argument would be valid if firearms laws weren't purposely confusing and impossibly extensive.....Nope, it's still valid because that's the way it actually is. If you have guns, you need to know and understand the law. Not doing so is unlikely to get you off the hook.

There are many resources to help, but it's still going to be up to you to know the law.

[DMF]

And no, you can't find a cocaine distributer in a magazine and place an order. And last I checked, the DEA can't bust into your house and send you to prison for a decade simply because you have the cleaning supplies necessary to produce crystal methamphetamine.WTH are you talking about? How is this cocaine and meth statement relevant to this thread?

[Sambo82]

This is WTH I'm talking about I didn't know cocaine was illegal,and had a kilo on my desk....the DEA wouldn't be overly concerned about my lack of legal knowledge. You may see the two as being distinctly different, but look at it this way...There ARE sites out there where one can procure nearly any illegal drug one can imagine, for delivery to one's home or PO box.

[Davek1977]

prehaps not from a magazine, but online, yes.......

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/silkroad/

but thats neither here nor there....just because one has the means to obtain something illegal doesn't mean that now possession of it IS legal.

As for the argument the laws are too confusing to follow....I respectfully disagree. Driving laws are complex....but you are expected to follow them. Tax codes are complex....but you are expected to follow them....and so on and so forth. Being 'confusing" doesn't give you a right to ignore the law. And guess what? if you don't know the laws, theres plenty of resources out there, from websites such as this one all the way to the batfe itself. If you don't know, ask. A minute or two of your time may save you ten years of your time in certain cases.

[DMF]

Sambo82, how about you explain the cleaning supplies nonsense?

[garymc]

To clarify the analogy of the controlled drug, or give a more realistic comparison, take Vicodin or Xanax, both of which you can find being offered in spam e-mails. Both drugs are controlled substances, Schedule III and Schedule IV, respectively. If you manage to get these online without a prescription and you get the real thing, you're in illegal possession. If you're caught by a deputy sheriff, city police officer, state trooper, or DEA agent with it and no prescription, you're in trouble. Cocaine, a Schedule II drug, is also available by prescription. But it's so rarely prescribed, and as a Schedule II so tightly controlled, you don't see it advertised.

[kozak6]

Sambo82, how about you explain the cleaning supplies nonsense?

The idea is constructive intent. The argument is that common cleaning supplies and cold medicine can be used to make meth. Many of us have these items in our house for legitimate purposes. Since these items are possessed for legitimate purposes and not for drug production, it would be unreasonable for the DEA to charge you for running a meth lab when you actually just have well stocked medicine and bathroom cabinets.

The problem is that this is a terrible argument since it doesn't work when you are talking about machine gun parts and jigs. It's freaking machine gun parts and jigs. The legitimate use of such items is... somewhat limited. Machine guns are serious business. I mean, damn.

If the BATFE were busting shoelace purchasers for shoelace "machineguns", the analogy would be spot on.

Charging people with possession of machine guns for purchasing machine gun conversion devices is a little different.

[liberty -r- death]

Not trying to split hairs.

Is buying the part illegal if you do not own an AR?

[Davek1977]

yes, as the auto sear itself..under law...IS the "machine gun" in and of itself

[Sam1911]

yes, as the auto sear itself..under law...IS the "machine gun" in and of itself

Just for clarity, the "Drop In Auto Sear" device shown above, or the similar "Lightning Link" are considered machine guns by themselves. They drop in without modifications to the gun to make a regular semi-auto AR-15 fire as a full-auto. Possessing one, all by itself, without it being lawfully registered is illegal.

The original fire-control parts of an M-16 are not a "machine gun" by themselves and are not illegal to possess.

[Telekinesis]

There's no excuse for not knowing the law, especially when you're dealing with firearms or anything else in which misinterpreting a law could result in you spending a decade or more behind bars.

The "common" wisdom in regards to machine guns is that they are illegal (most people don't know about NFA laws). Why would someone think "I can't have a machine gun, but this part makes a gun do exactly the same thing! Of course it must be legal!"

I also have no idea why a magazine like Shotgun News would allow someone to advertise something like this in their magazine (even if it was a legit ATF sting). It seems like they would want to try and protect their readers from predatory advertisements like these.

[Sambo82]

The laws regarding NFA items ARE overly complex. Here's an online thread from ar15.com showing just how confusing the rules with DIAS's are. http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=6&f=17&t=229891

Generally the guys there are pretty knowledgable, but as you can see there's little consensus. Most were at that time saying that owning an unregistered DIAS AND an ar15 is illegal, but otherwise a DIAS by itself is fine.

I believe my analogy with cleaning supplies and meth is valid. If a person happens to possess an ar15 pistol and stock that will fit it, does that constitute "constructive possession" of an SBR? Neither of these items is an SBR in and of itself, and the possessor may have never had any intent to actually construct said SBR. We could get into a long debate about the legality of it, but the point is is that these "laws" (if one can call summary rulings by the BATFE that neither Congress nor the people vote on "laws") are ambiguous.

I keep hearing that the tax code and driving laws are complex as well, as though that somehow validates a set of rules that serve no purpose but to imprison otherwise innocent people. Not for one second will I buy the argument that driving laws are as draconian as firearms laws. I have never heard of anyone being hauled off to prison for ten years for violating a driving law that hurt no one and was purposely ambigiuous. Yes, tax codes are complex. Most people, expecially the wealthy, pay a firm or professional to file their taxes for them. Do YOU want to hire a lawyer to decipher the firearms codes whenever you want to execrise your RKBA?

Ultimately it boils down to constitutionality. I'm in awe that on a firearms forum we have folks advocating on behalf of an agency that violates so many aspects of our Constitution. Not only should the 2A clearly trump any firearms laws, but where in the Constitution is the BATFE even authorized to exist? I don't remember reading about it in the Federal Government's Enumerated Powers. Furthermore where in the Constitution is an agency, or any group of people, allowed to "decide" what is legal or illegal sans any vote from Congress or the People?

I sure hope those on here defending this agency and these "laws" aren't LEO's. If you are I'd have to ask at what time you decided to abandon that oath you took to defend our beloved Constitution. I know I know it's just easier to go with the tide and let a few innocent people get swept under. I'm sure you've got a career to worry about.

[Davek1977]

I'm in awe that on a firearms forum we have folks advocating on behalf of an agency that violates so many aspects of our Constitution.


Sambo, just because someone points out that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it doesn't equate by any stretch of the imagination that we agree that's how it should be. Frankly, how things SHOULD be has precious little to do with how the law reads or is enforced. My personal opinion on auto-sears or machine guns or drug laws or gay marriage is of little concern to anyone. What matters are the laws, and whether we agree with them or not, breaking them comes with harsh consequences. We can work to change them, but giving advice in a legal forum based on how things "ought" to be doesn't fly. The laws are the law, and until changed, we are responsible for compliance with them. That may be confusing...that may 'suck"....but in the end, until they are changed, I'm compelled to comply, as i don't have ten years to spare. compliance with said laws is hardly advocating on behalf of the BATFE. I may feel the same way about the laws in question as you do, but their being confusing doesn't mean i'm exempt..or should be...from following them

[Sambo82]

Sambo, just because someone points out that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it doesn't equate by any stretch of the imagination that we agree that's how it should be.

You're right. I would not advocate breaking these regulations to anyone. Spending a decade in prison just to enjoy a slightly higher rate of fire from my semi auto is something I wouldn't do. But obeying these regulations out of fear is very different from defending or enforcing them. I don't think you can get any more dishonorable than swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution, taking taxpayer money to do just that, and then enforcing statutes that brazenly violate it.


The most often repeated argument in support of the prosecution of people who violate unconstitutional laws is "well they should have known better". The only times I ever hear the "well they should have known better" argument is when either someone wants to maintain apathy when something horrible has happened to another person, or when a criminal wants to shift the blame for their crime onto their victim. When I hear this in regards to the enforcement of unconstitutional laws, I can't help but think it's both.

[Frank Ettin]

....I'm in awe that on a firearms forum we have folks advocating on behalf of an agency that violates so many aspects of our Constitution. Not only should the 2A clearly trump any firearms laws, but where in the Constitution is the BATFE even authorized to exist? I don't remember reading about it in the Federal Government's Enumerated Powers. Furthermore where in the Constitution is an agency, or any group of people, allowed to "decide" what is legal or illegal sans any vote from Congress or the People?...In the real world, constitutionality is finally a matter for the courts. Unless and until a court with jurisdiction has invalidated a law, the law exists and is enforceable.

If you think a law is unconstitutional, and if you have the time and money, feel free to challenge it. The courts are open for business. But in the meantime, your opinion about whether or not a law is constitutional really doesn't mean anything. The opinions of courts regarding the law affect the lives and property or real people in the real world. Your opinions on the law and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

...The most often repeated argument in support of the prosecution of people who violate unconstitutional laws is "well they should have known better". The only times I ever hear the "well they should have known better" argument is when either someone wants to maintain apathy when something horrible has happened to another person,...Anyone prosecuted on a criminal charge has the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the laws he's being prosecuted under. That is when and how the question of constitutionality is addressed. Your opinion on that point really doesn't matter.

[DMF]

The idea is constructive intent. The argument is that common cleaning supplies and cold medicine can be used to make meth. Many of us have these items in our house for legitimate purposes. Since these items are possessed for legitimate purposes and not for drug production, it would be unreasonable for the DEA to charge you for running a meth lab when you actually just have well stocked medicine and bathroom cabinets.
Good grief, why do people insist on using legal terms, when they are completely ignorant of their actual meaning? "Constructive Intent" has ZERO to with an ability to construct a product.

Here is the reality of "Constructive Intent":

From Black's Law Dictionary, "constructive intent: A legal principle that actual intent will be presumed when an act leading to the result could have been reasonably expect to cause that result."

For example, if a person drinks alcohol until they become intoxicated, then drives an automobile, and causes an accident resulting in a death. The act of drinking and driving can be reasonably expected to result in an accident, including fatal accidents, and therefore the drunk driver can be charged with manslaughter.

It has nothing to do with having the materials or intent to manufacture an item.

[DMF]

I believe my analogy with cleaning supplies and meth is valid. If a person happens to possess an ar15 pistol and stock that will fit it, does that constitute "constructive possession" of an SBR?Again, we have some completely ignorant of the facts throwing around a legal term, and getting it flat out WRONG.

"Constructive Possession" has NOTHING to do with the ability to manufacture an item.

I've posted about the reality of "constructive possession" ad nauseum on this forum, yet people continue to through this nonsense around.

Here are some links to the previous explanations of constructive possession, many with citations from Black's Law Dictionary and caselaw:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2975523&highlight=constructive+possession#post2975523

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2560180&highlight=constructive+possession#post2560180

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2680832&highlight=constructive+possession#post2680832

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2912743&highlight=constructive+possession#post2912743

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2913506&highlight=constructive+possession#post2913506

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2923641&highlight=constructive+possession#post2923641

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2975523&highlight=constructive+possession#post2975523

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=2997923&highlight=constructive+possession#post2997923

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3041826&highlight=constructive+possession#post3041826

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3042128&highlight=constructive+possession#post3042128

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3824770&highlight=constructive+possession#post3824770

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3991288&highlight=constructive+possession#post3991288

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3992720&highlight=constructive+possession#post3992720

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4265444&highlight=constructive+possession#post4265444

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4773900&highlight=constructive+possession#post4773900

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5823892&highlight=constructive+possession#post5823892

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=6464456&highlight=constructive+possession#post6464456

Those are just the links where I provided some explanation, rather than just saying the people were using the term wrong and linking to previous posts.

What follows is an explanation of constructive possession that should make it clear. In this example we'll use narcotics - Cocaine base (aka crack) v. powder cocaine (NOTE: I'm not interested in debating the merits of the drug laws, just trying to provide an easy to understand example).

The sentencing guidelines under federal law are much different for crack v. powder. Currently 28 grams or more of crack carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. However, the same mandatory minimums do not kick in for powder until you hit 500 grams. Therefore if someone has 2 ounces of crack (56g) for distribution they are looking at a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence if convicted in federal court because they have more than 28 grams. However if someone has 2 ounces of powder cocaine (56g) they are not subject to that same mandatory minimum sentence, because they have less than 500 grams. Therefore if a cop or prosecutor wants to put someone away for a long time it's best to be able to charge them with crack v. powder cocaine.

So here's an example:

Joe Blow is suspected of being a crack dealer and during an investigation an undercover cop buys a half ounce of crack (14g) from Joe Blow at his apartment. Based on this info and other info obtained during the investigation the cops obtain an arrest warrant for Blow, and a search warrant for his apartment, when they serve the warrant Blow does not have any drugs on his person, but hidden in the next room officers find 250 grams of powder cocaine, large amounts of baking soda, scales, glass containers with crack residue, etc. However, despite the obvious intent of Blow to cook up that 250g of powder cocaine into crack, at the time of his arrest it is still just powder cocaine.

Because the drugs were not physically on his person, but Blow was the only one in the apartment, and there is other evidence to show the apartment is his and he has been using it for his drug dealing, he is in constructive possession of the powder cocaine, because he has power to control and intent to control the cocaine. However, despite his obvious intent, ability, and the necessary materials to cook the powder cocaine into crack, he cannot be charged with being in possession of 28g or more of crack cocaine, and because his sale of crack to the undercover cop amounts to less than 28g he will not face that 5 year mandatory min at sentencing.

You see Blow has the intent to manufacture more than 28 grams of crack, and has all the materials necessary to do that, but is NOT in constructive possession of crack because it is not actually crack. He can only be charged with the 14 grams of crack he sold, and the 250 grams of powder he constructively possessed at the time of his arrest. Neither of which triggers the 5 year mandatory minimum.

So please, if you're going to make claims about the law, and try to use legal terms, like constructive possession, learn the facts first.

[cheeze]

Wow, God forbid someone uses the wrong terminology. It's obvious what was meant, regardless of the actual terminology.

[Frank Ettin]

...God forbid someone uses the wrong terminology. It's obvious what was meant, regardless of the actual terminology. [1] No it's not obvious what was meant.

[2] Legal terms are technical and have precise meanings. If they are misused, it's not clear what is meant, nor whether the speaker understands what he is trying to convey.

[cheeze]

Okay, I'll rephrase, it was obvious to ME what he was trying to say. Using the phrase in proper context wouldn't even make sense, but the words in the phrase along with the matter being discussed... well, I wouldn't think it takes a genius to decipher the meaning. Some folks may have trouble figuring out what he meant. If so, there is a clear explanation above.

In any case, it didn't require a demeaning and condescending reply to correct him.

[Davek1977]

when misinformation and wrong terminology can effectively result in prison time, I have no problem with people striving to provide the correct info, or using terms properly. This is one of those times "close" isn't going to be good enough....kind of like when you are reloading, you don't use x amount of powder instead of y simply because you think "well, its close enough" Sometimes the margin between correct...and "close enough, I figure" is enough to be dangerous or unwise. If someone is talking about "constructive intent"...in a legal forum, where we are concerned with legal issues....using the term as its used in the legal profession shouldn't be too much to ask, rather than defining a a well known legal term in a manner that bears no resemblance to the actual legal...widely understood and clearly defined...meaning.

[Frank Ettin]

Okay, I'll rephrase, it was obvious to ME what he was trying to say. Using the phrase in proper context wouldn't even make sense, but the words in the phrase along with the matter being discussed... well, I wouldn't think it takes a genius to decipher the meaning....The point is that the words used described an entirely different legal concept from the one the writer was apparently trying to describe, and the facts assumed did not have the legal significance the writer ascribed to them. So --

[1] If one is going to use a technical term, he needs to use it correctly and not expect others to guess at his meaning; and

[2] If one uses a technical term in correctly, it will quite appropriately lead others to believe that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[BSA1]

Deleted.

[Telekinesis]

1. It is LEGAL TO OWN A FULL AUTO WEAPON

BSA1: yes, pretty much everyone here knows this and quite a few of us either have NFA weapons/toys or know how to acquire them. What is at issue here is the fact that it is NOT legal for any non FFL/SOT to have a machine gun that was not registered prior to 1986. The closure of the registry that year is what causes a $25 DIAS to cost thousands of dollars today. Essentially you are buying paperwork that happens to come with a machine gun.

And just a small pet peeve of mine, there is no such thing as a "class 3" dealer. Assuming you're talking about a store and not a manufacturer, they would be a FFL 01/SOT 03. The "class 3" is a tax code, and these dealers sell/ transfer Title 2 weapons.

[Frank Ettin]

This one is done.