What if BATF Adds Semi Autos to the NFA?


PDA






SharpsDressedMan
December 25, 2012, 06:09 PM
If they added semi autos to the NFA, required background, registration, and $200 fee, would you go through the hoops? I could see that happening, with "amnesty" for all pre-existing semi's to be registered, etc. What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "What if BATF Adds Semi Autos to the NFA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JTW Jr.
December 25, 2012, 06:14 PM
I don't see that as being feasible in any sense.

M-Cameron
December 25, 2012, 06:17 PM
in the EXTREMELY unlikely event that happens....

i would probably go through the motions to do whats necessary to keep the ones i have.......but i probably wouldnt go through the whole NFA process to buy any more.

ide imagine revolvers, pump, lever and bolt action rifles would see an immense surge in popularity again.....that is until the antis get their knickers in a bunch and find a reason to ban those too.....

tomrkba
December 25, 2012, 06:43 PM
The ATF cannot exceed statute. Does the statute allow the addition of semi-automatics to the NFA list?

Aaron Baker
December 25, 2012, 07:10 PM
I don't believe that the ATF, as a regulatory agency, as the statutory authority to add weapons to those required to be registered. Letting an agency make decisions that big would seem to be an improper delegation of legislative authority, and therefore a separation of powers problem.

And it was the National Firearms Act of 1934, duly passed by Congress, that put Title II firearms on the list of things that needed to be registered. NFA, by the definition of that statute, doesn't include semi-automatic weapons.

I suppose they could argue that all semi-automatics are "readily convertible" to fully automatic, but that would be a stretch, and not likely to hold up in court.

Still, the underlying question seems to be: if Congress added semi-automatics to the NFA, would you continue to buy them?

My answer is: Yep, assuming that they don't also raise the tax, since it was originally intended to be a prohibitive tax and just hasn't increased with inflation. If the tax was $2000 instead of $200, then no.

Aaron

fatcat4620
December 25, 2012, 07:20 PM
I have thought about this. I doubt they would want to take on the task of registering MILLIONS of rifles. I would think it would be a this day forward all new purchases need to go through the process.

jimmyraythomason
December 25, 2012, 07:48 PM
Does the statute allow the addition of semi-automatics to the NFA list?
Street Sweepers are semi-auto.

SharpsDressedMan
December 25, 2012, 07:50 PM
^^^You're probably right....a new congressionally adopted law could cover all new guns, or future dealer sales of semi autos, and possibly add restrictions like the NFA. They already have a precedent: the NFA of 1934/1938. They did it once with full autos, they could easily see fit to regulate semi's.

Hacker15E
December 25, 2012, 07:52 PM
Street Sweepers are semi-auto.

Street Sweepers were labeled as Destructive Devices based on having a bore bigger than .50 and being not "generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes."

jimmyraythomason
December 25, 2012, 07:55 PM
Street Sweepers were labeled as Destructive Devices.
__________________
That's true but they are still semi-auto so the precedent has been set.

AlexanderA
December 25, 2012, 08:40 PM
It would take a complete restructuring of the NFA. They might as well sit down and write it anew from scratch. There's no telling what it would resemble once the legislative process was completed. I personally think that the more this is considered, the less feasible it becomes. There are literally millions of AR-15's, etc. They would bog down the system completely.

Sam1911
December 25, 2012, 08:58 PM
Street Sweepers were labeled as Destructive Devices.
That's true but they are still semi-auto so the precedent has been set.
I don't think you quite understand what he meant. The shotguns which were re-designated as Destructive Devices COULD BE, because the way the NFA was written, oddly enough, ALL shotguns over a 1/2" bore are Destructive Devices -- except that they are granted a special blanket exemption for being "sporting." When the decision came down to make those DDs, it was simply an administrative change to rescind the standard exemption in the case of those specific guns.

There is no provision under the NFA to make semiautomatic rifles (over 26" OAL, over 16" barrel) regulated under Title II of the law. Without Congress going back "under the hood" and re-writing the law itself, it just isn't possible.

Landric
December 25, 2012, 09:00 PM
Congress would have to change to NFA in order to include semi-automatic rifles of .50 cal and under. The street sweeper and Stryker 12 were added as destructive devices because the NFA as it exists allowed the ATF to make the determination that they were "non-sporting" and therefore destructive devices. The same method is not available for semi-automatic rifles of .50 cal and under. As for deciding that all semi-autos were easily convertible to full-automatic; I suppose the ATF could try that, but considering that they have to approve all new gun designs, and have signed off on all the guns as not being easily convertible they would be reclassifying as easily convertible, that would be a hard legal road to hoe for them.

As for the original question, I would absolutely register my current AR type rifles (hopefully in a free amnesty period), and assuming the tax didn't go up significantly, I would continue to buy them. I buy NFA stuff already, so adding a class wouldn't effect me. However, I would likely make all my semi-autos SBRs since they would have to be registered anyway.

In reality though, if congress has the votes for a reclassification of semi-autos to NFA, they have the votes for a ban, and a ban is what the gun grabbers really want.

AlexanderA
December 25, 2012, 10:43 PM
As for the original question, I would absolutely register my current AR type rifles (hopefully in a free amnesty period), and assuming the tax didn't go up significantly, I would continue to buy them. I buy NFA stuff already, so adding a class wouldn't effect me. However, I would likely make all my semi-autos SBRs since they would have to be registered anyway.

If there was an amnesty period, most likely it would be across the board, applying to all NFA categories. If that was the case, you could just as well convert semis to full autos. Such a massive registration drive also implies repeal of the Hughes Amendment, and opening up the registry.

In reality though, if congress has the votes for a reclassification of semi-autos to NFA, they have the votes for a ban, and a ban is what the gun grabbers really want.

An outright ban would mean compensation under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, using money that the government doesn't have to spare. This is the reason why, even if they had the votes, the antis might prefer just bringing semi-autos under the NFA. Considering the truly huge time delay (years?) in processing transfer applications, this would amount to a freeze of the guns with their current owners, as a practical matter. Then the pressure from gun owners would be to massively increase the funding for the ATF, so that transfers could be processed.

Jim K
December 25, 2012, 10:57 PM
Well, BATF can't do that, although Congress could by changing the law. So far, though, I have not heard that as a serious proposal. The main emphasis is on reinstating the AWB with maybe adding a few more weapons (the M1 carbine has been mentioned).

At the moment, though I think folks in NY and MD have more to fear from the state than from the feds. Both O'Malley and Cuomo are talking registration, a total ban on transfers and confiscation. There is a rumor that some O'Malley aide has even suggested calling out the National Guard to seize assault weapons. I do NOT believe that is true, but if it is, it takes gun control to a whole new level.

Jim

crazy-mp
December 25, 2012, 11:04 PM
If there was an amnesty period,

It would not be a amnesty period with amnesty you are protected from prosecution for having items which are illegal, and semi-auto rifles are not illegal.


If that was the case, you could just as well convert semis to full autos. Such a massive registration drive also implies repeal of the Hughes Amendment, and opening up the registry.

How do you figure? If you write the ATF and tell them you have 10 M16's you want to register when they are asking for number of semi-auto rifles you own they will come visit you. They would just add on to existing laws, they would not take the white out and say register what ever you want.



When the USAS-12, Streetsweeper and the Striker 12, was declared a "destructive device" you could register the weapon from 1994-May 1, 2001. After that time you would be prosecuted for possessing a illegal firearm. No tax was collected when these guns were registered, because it was a retroactive law. ATF states that approximately 8,200 were registered.

Trent
December 25, 2012, 11:51 PM
ATF states that approximately 8,200 were registered.

Out of how many produced / sold?

Old Dog
December 26, 2012, 01:24 AM
No ex post facto laws. We can't be forced to pay additional for what we already legally own. Give it a rest, guys.

jimmyraythomason
December 26, 2012, 08:11 AM
No ex post facto laws. Violence Against Women Law 1994. Enforcment was retroactive. Possession of a Firearm after Conviction of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence

18 U.S.C. 922 (g) (9)
Under this law, it is unlawful for anyone who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition or to receive any firearm or ammunition that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Aaron Baker
December 26, 2012, 08:43 AM
Violence Against Women Law 1994. Enforcment was retroactive. Possession of a Firearm after Conviction of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence


That's not ex post facto. You cannot be prosecuted for having possessed a firearm after being convicted of a crime of domestic violence BEFORE the effective date of the act. That would be ex post facto. The "crime" in the case of this law is possession. It's only illegal after the law was passed in 1994. Having been convicted of a crime of domestic violence is merely a one element of the crime.

I suppose you could be arguing that the outlawing of possession of firearms (after having been convicted of a crime of domestic violence) is such a huge punishment that it should have been decided by a jury during the sentencing phase of the domestic violence crime proceeding, but I don't think you're really arguing that. I think you just don't quite understand ex post facto.

It's no different than requiring registration of fully automatic weapons. Before 1934, it wasn't illegal to possess an unregistered fully automatic weapon. After 1934, it was. You had time to register, and then if you didn't, you were breaking the law. It's not an ex post facto law because possessing unregistered machine guns was only illegal after the law. Same with the Violence Against Women Law. You weren't breaking the law by having the guns before the act became effective. You just had to get rid of them to comply with the law after 1994.

There's a lot of reasons that adding semi-autos to the NFA would be hard, but arguing that the Violence Against Women Act was ex post facto isn't getting us anywhere.

Aaron

KansasSasquatch
December 26, 2012, 09:12 AM
This may not be acceptable talk here on THR but if that situation were to occur, no I would not jump through those hoops.....and I wouldn't give mine up either. I am not advocating that anyone else break a law but I am advocating that everyone at the very least question unreasonable laws. Requiring a $200 tax stamp for a semi-automatic firearm, in my opinion, is extremely unreasonable. Four of the six firearms currently in my possesion are semi-auto and with the economy the way it currently is there's no way I can afford $800 worth of tax stamps. I generally stay out of the NFA section since I can't afford any NFA items but this topic caught my attention. I don't have any statistics to back it up, but I would guess that most firearms owners have at least 1 semi-auto. And I would bet that half of them/us couldn't afford to jump through that hoop for every semi-auto we possess. If they passed a regulation like that, I feel that they might as well ban all firearms...... :cuss: that's how unreasonable I think that regulation would be.

AlexanderA
December 26, 2012, 09:14 AM
How do you figure? If you write the ATF and tell them you have 10 M16's you want to register when they are asking for number of semi-auto rifles you own they will come visit you. They would just add on to existing laws, they would not take the white out and say register what ever you want.

This is all admittedly just speculation right now. But if an outright ban gains traction, there's no telling how it would be configured after the sausage-making that is the legislative process. From what I'm reading from antigun advocates, they would prefer bringing whatever they want to ban under the NFA, rather than simply confiscating it. (That way they wouldn't have to pay compensation.) At that point (and only at that point), the pro-gun side could plausibly add amendments providing for an across-the-board amnesty, and for a permanent opening of the registry. This could be sold to the antigunners as a means of "registering more guns." In reality, it would be a poison pill, like a reverse Hughes Amendment. (The second part of this plan would be a vast increase in funding, and streamlining, of the ATF and its procedures so that it could approve transfers in a timely fashion.)

AlexanderA
December 26, 2012, 09:29 AM
Requiring a $200 tax stamp for a semi-automatic firearm, in my opinion, is extremely unreasonable.

The initial registration would be free (based on what happened with the original 1934 NFA). Thereafter, transfers would be subject to a $200 (or whatever amount is decided) tax. The biggest impediment, though, would be the lengthy clearance process. There would be a whole cascade of "unintended consequences," such as a huge spike in the value of the registered items, and a corresponding fall in the value of unregistered items. All you have to do is look at what happened to full automatics.

Trent
December 26, 2012, 11:12 AM
Hell, they can't keep up on CURRENT NFA stuff. Let alone if you throw another 300 million or so items in to a registry.

"Sure, you can fill out a Form 4; current wait time is approx 78 years."

AlexanderA
December 26, 2012, 12:08 PM
"Sure, you can fill out a Form 4; current wait time is approx 78 years."

That's why, to make the idea of adding semis to the NFA registry workable, the clearance process would have to be changed so as to be something like a NICS check. No reason why they couldn't have this back to you in a couple of weeks, postal time included. They could even set it up so that everything could be done online.

Prince Yamato
December 27, 2012, 10:50 AM
This would never go through. Way too many guns. Aside from the fact it was easy to do so with the DD clause, there weren't many StreetSweepers out there to begin with. Feinstein's law is so encompassing, basically every semi-auto would be nfa.

Personally, if this does look like it will pass, I say we add a poison pill to open up the mg registry.

AlexanderA
December 27, 2012, 03:06 PM
Personally, if this does look like it will pass, I say we add a poison pill to open up the mg registry.

Yes, and to remove suppressors, SBR's, SBS's, and AOW's from the NFA, on the ground that they don't represent a crime problem and burden the NFA system. Also, there should be at least a year-long free registration amnesty window for all the remaining categories under the NFA.

JTW Jr.
December 27, 2012, 05:42 PM
If you think anything is going to ever be removed from NFA status , you are going to be very disappointed.

bsctov
December 27, 2012, 08:42 PM
BTW, the supreme court upheld a retroactive domestic violence gun ban as constitutional after some cops got the F.O.P to sue because they lost their jobs due to this.


So even if you got convicted of DV offense in 1993, law passed in 1994, you would still be prohibited.In a stroke of logic that can be described as nothing short of remarkable, They ruled that a firearms prohibition was not serious enough to trigger the ex post facto requirements, thus even those convicted before the ban went into place are prohibited.

Cesiumsponge
December 27, 2012, 09:35 PM
I don't really care much for putting "semi-automatic machine gun" under firearm type on an ATF Form 4 (5320.4)

Hokkmike
December 27, 2012, 10:49 PM
The provision to put grandfathered "assault rifles" into the NFA registry is part of Feinstein's bill. Go to her website and read it .

slidemuzik
December 27, 2012, 11:34 PM
Does anybody know the ins and outs of transfering ownership of firearms to a corporation and getting them out of personal ownership?

I read something about this regarding silencers. Seems like the same technique might be used here.

If private transfers were banned, could you in theory form a corporation for each gun and then transfer ownership of the corporation that owns the gun? That way the owner (The corporation) never changes, the ownership of the corporation does.

Cesiumsponge
December 27, 2012, 11:45 PM
Paying the $200 tax to transfer it out of your name, and $200 tax to transfer it into a corporation for suppressors. And more waiting.

JTW Jr.
December 28, 2012, 12:12 AM
Real "assault rifles" are already NFA......... " selective fire (either fully automatic or burst capable)"

what the media and our politicians call "assault rifles" is incorrect. But you can't expect them to understand that , after all we have all these 30 round "clips".....

I mean really , wouldn't a 30rnd "clip" really screw up the cycling of the bolt on your Mauser , Enfield or Garrand ? Not to mention really block your sight picture ;)

jon_in_wv
December 28, 2012, 12:25 AM
Doesn't Feinsten's proposed AWB do exactly what you guys are saying is "highly unlikely?". her website seems to say any weapon banned by the new AWB and grandfathered in would require registration under the NFA. Seems to me in the present climate it is more than highly unlikely this could happen. Just like so many guys said it was "highly unlikely" Obama would go after gun control if he was re-elected but he has already called for it before he has even been inaugurated. It seems some people need to wake up and redefine what highly unlikely means before its too late.

Sheepdog1968
December 28, 2012, 12:36 AM
I would comply with the law. Last thing I want to do is have something illegal and face a possible felony which would then make me loose my gun rights.

silvermane_1
December 28, 2012, 01:33 AM
^this

leadcounsel
December 28, 2012, 01:56 AM
I am VERY worried about this.

1) I don't think lack of feasibility or even the huge complexity and cost is a concern of the legislators. They want to take our guns, at any cost and price. Exhibit A - 2 years and millions of dollars later, Obamacare is a complex and costly mess. But it stood up in SCOTUS.

2) The combonation of Executive Orders to the ATF and new laws, we could really be screwed. Registration, extra costs, etc. I've also read that you cannot transfer your guns, including through inheritance.

This is just horrible.

YOU MUST write your representatives. NOW!

nazshooter
December 28, 2012, 02:59 AM
I would comply with the law. Last thing I want to do is have something illegal and face a possible felony which would then make me loose my gun rights.

Same here.... If I hadn't already sold everything.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

lefteyedom
December 28, 2012, 03:08 AM
Time t get an 80% lower, some PVC tubing and sharpen the post hole diggers blades...

Sambo82
December 28, 2012, 04:13 AM
As others have said, adding semi auto's to the NFA registry is already on the bill on Feinstein's website. I hear talk about how hard funding it would be, but if there is an update of the NFA, it would suprise me if they didn't price index the tax stamp to the 3500$ or so to compensate for inflation.

If something like this went through, I wouldn't comply, with all that that implies. I don't say that with any false bravado, either. Truth is, I'm scared as hell. But ultimately, as we've seen with full auto, registration eventually becomes a ban, and if we follow the UK or Australia that becomes confiscation. I'd rather get my civil disobedience in while I've still got the teeth to make it count.

But hopefully this is just meaningless political profiteering on the part of Feinstein and it will all blow over. We Americans have notorously short attention spa... hey Iron Chef is on.

Girodin
December 28, 2012, 09:06 AM
Doesn't Feinsten's proposed AWB do exactly what you guys are saying is "highly unlikely?"

Actually the proposal underscores what people here have said. That under the current laws the ATF cannot do it on its own. Rather there must be a change in the law from congress.

Her proposal is also slightly different in that it would still block new production, sales, and transfers. It would require NFA registration of grandfathered weapons. And under her shockingly expansive list of of what would be banned you would have to register this bad boy:

https://www.iammo.com/products/images/full/53582-889-Remington-22-LR-BDL-Deluxe-Speedmaster-Semi-Automatic-Blue-Barrel-Wood-Stock-5594.jpeg

The scope of her proposal is mind blowing. The good news is perhaps that it helps to show their hand and what they are really after. Basically they are very clearly trying to get as close to simply banning all semi autos as they think they can get. It sweeps in guns that even the, "I don't need that kind of gun for hunting" "pro gun" folks are likely to object to. Her proposals are also so far reaching it makes their constitutionality even more questionable Her proposals go so far beyond what the '94 ban was that it is very frightening. However, I think the chance of her full list of proposals passing is extremely slight.

rdhood
December 28, 2012, 09:27 AM
As others have said, adding semi auto's to the NFA registry is already on the bill on Feinstein's website. I hear talk about how hard funding it would be, but if there is an update of the NFA, it would suprise me if they didn't price index the tax stamp to the 3500$ or so to compensate for inflation

At which point any such law would be clearly unconstitutional. Remember, just because Congress passes it does not make it constitutional. I strongly suspect that the SCOTUS will not view a semi-auto 10/22 in the same perview as an M16 or belt fed anything. Banning and confiscation of a 10/22 simply because it is semiauto is an obvious overreach. It might even force the SCOTUS to start creating law to determine what a "reasonable restriction" is. I, for one, don't think putting semi-auto squirrel guns in the NFA for future $3500 transfer is a "reasonable restriction".

Further, while the topic is Semi AUtos, the NFA restriction is also called for for hi-cap magazines. These are generally un-serialized and outnumber rifles about 5:1, 10:1, maybe even 100:1. Are we really going to try to put 30 billion magazines without serial numbers in the NFA? Seriously?

Carl N. Brown
December 28, 2012, 11:10 AM
The USAS-12 declared a DD was semi-auto, but, the Streetsweeper also restricted as a DD was a 12ga revolver action, not a semi-automatic.

Both were declared "destructive devices" for being both over .50" bore and "non-sporting purposes" because they were strictly designed as combat shotguns.

While certain congresspersons seen to want to add new classes of firearms to the NFA classifications, I am not so sure that ATF especially the Firearms Technology Branch are keen on the idea.

When you realize that Canada abandoned its long gun registry after 17 years and 2.7 billion dollars with no discernable law enforcement benefit, you would think that adding tens of millions of semi-auto rifles to our NFA registry would be seen as a useless waste of law enforcement resources.

Carl N. Brown
December 28, 2012, 11:32 AM
If you think anything is going to ever be removed from NFA status , you are going to be very disappointed.

Original Mauser C96 pistols with shoulder stocks (once a NFA item under Title II NFA) are now Curio & Relic pistols subject to Title I GCA same as other handguns.

Original Trapper rifles made by Winchester and Marlin (once NFA SBR items under Title II 1934 NFA) are now Curio & Relic rifles subject to Title I GCA same other rifles.

Small concessions to the idea certain firearms are more valued as collectibles than as weapons, but a concession nonetheless.

Girodin
December 28, 2012, 11:50 AM
While certain congresspersons seen to want to add new classes of firearms to the NFA classifications, I am not so sure that ATF especially the Firearms Technology Branch are keen on the idea.

In Washington budgets are king. If it comes with a big budget increase, which is what Feinstein suggests her bill include, it might sweeten the ATF on the idea. The expense, however, seems even more folly given our current fiscal situation. I think Feinstiens bill as she describes it will be a non starter. There is an argument that it is a deliberately absurd starting point to then "compromise" to something less.

tepin
December 28, 2012, 07:58 PM
I got this email from the NRA today (see below). I have 8 AR15 rifles. If they increase the NFA fee to 3500.00 to account for inflation, that is $28K. That would be hard to swallow (actually 7 since 1 is already pending a NFA stamp for a SBR). Feinstein has also proposed that when the owner of the NFA item dies, the device must be surrendered to the government. So, when you do your mandatory NFA registration, do so in the name of a Trust (a Trust never dies) so you can keep it in the family. After the ban passes, I wonder what will happen when some idiot kills another 30 kids with a Glock and 20 ten-round magazines. Gun bans are such a wast of time and money.


Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.
According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

· Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

· Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

· Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.


· Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

· Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

jon_in_wv
December 29, 2012, 09:28 PM
If they passed this abomination of the law I would comply with it in the sense I would take a hacksaw to the receiver of my AK and make it inoperable. When the law is overturned, eventually, I would buy a new receiver and reassemble it. I'll be damned if I will give it to them or allow it to be registered.

Rail Driver
December 30, 2012, 01:44 AM
If they passed this abomination of the law I would comply with it in the sense I would take a hacksaw to the receiver of my AK and make it inoperable. When the law is overturned, eventually, I would buy a new receiver and reassemble it. I'll be damned if I will give it to them or allow it to be registered.
I do sincerely believe that if this travesty of a law is passed, it will be time to saddle up and hit the "reset" button on our government. We CANNOT allow this to stand. To do so is treason and suicide at the same time.

kimberkid
December 30, 2012, 07:20 PM
I would hope we would look to Canada to see how that worked out for them ... Spent billions of dollars before they finally abandoned the idea as impossible.

reggie_love
December 30, 2012, 07:48 PM
Massive noncompliance.

I would rather chew glass than deal with the BATFE. I would rather deal with the hardest, most tattooed Crips; I'd probably be safer anyway.

AlexanderA
December 30, 2012, 07:59 PM
I would rather chew glass than deal with the BATFE.

I had no problems with them when I had my FFL and SOT. If you act decently with them, and obey the rules, you can expect to be treated likewise. Act like a wise guy, and they'll push back.

wally
December 30, 2012, 09:15 PM
Wait times would likely go from 6+ months to 6+ years

Kiln
December 30, 2012, 10:35 PM
I had no problems with them when I had my FFL and SOT. If you act decently with them, and obey the rules, you can expect to be treated likewise. Act like a wise guy, and they'll push back.
Keep in mind that these guys are part of a regulatory government branch. They're not there for your own good.

I don't want to have to "play by the rules" to own a semi automatic rifle. Good luck taking it from me without creating a public outcry anyways.

reggie_love
December 31, 2012, 12:58 AM
I had no problems with them when I had my FFL and SOT. If you act decently with them, and obey the rules, you can expect to be treated likewise. Act like a wise guy, and they'll push back.
I make a point not to disrespect anybody, but forgive me for not trusting an over-armed tax agency with wanton massacres to its name.

DammitBoy
December 31, 2012, 01:09 AM
Wait times would likely go from 6+ months to 6+ years

Sounds like Obama would need to hire a bunch more government employees. Shovel ready jobs and whatnot...

txnative1951
December 31, 2012, 05:11 AM
An outright ban would mean compensation under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, using money that the government doesn't have to spare.
I would not bet on the government compensating the owners for confiscation of their property. Just look back at history and you will see that they have confiscated property previously with no compensation. That's what the government did with respect to the slaves in the Civil War. Like it or not, at that time, slaves were legal property and the government declared that you cannot own that property anymore and confiscated them (i.e. set them free).

txnative1951
December 31, 2012, 05:25 AM
If you think anything is going to ever be removed from NFA status , you are going to be very disappointed.
The ancient Chinese had a torture / punishment that was called "Death By a Thousand Cuts". I have to wonder if the way that we are allowing the antis to take away our 2nd Amendment rights is best compared to this or the case of boiling a frog starting out in cold water. With each generation, we lose more of our 2nd Amendment rights and people grumble a bit and then go about their business. At what point do we take a stand and say, "NO MORE"?

txnative1951
December 31, 2012, 05:35 AM
I don't want to have to "play by the rules" to own a semi automatic rifle. Good luck taking it from me without creating a public outcry anyways.

It's not like they would be opposed to that. Just look what they did to the Branch Davidians in Waco, just so that they could manufacture an incident to get the Brady Bill passed.

VVelox
December 31, 2012, 05:43 AM
txnative1951, that is a truly terrible analogy as the "property" in question was sapient. It also makes you look like a southern sympathizer.

A much better analogy would be drugs.

txnative1951
December 31, 2012, 06:56 AM
txnative1951, that is a truly terrible analogy as the "property" in question was sapient. It also makes you look like a southern sympathizer.

A much better analogy would be drugs.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but the facts of the matter is that at that time, slaves were legal property and the government took them away without due compensation. Don't use the morals of today to judge our ancestors.

You're probably right about the drugs though. I seem to remember that at one time, certain drugs were completely legal, but they ended up being controlled substances and were no longer legal. Now, whether these drugs were actually confiscated by the government, I do not know. I have to suspect that most of them ended up just being used and their replacement was then illegal / controlled.

txnative1951
December 31, 2012, 07:02 AM
I would like to think that they would not be able to pass it, but the mere fact that these leftists are going to use the CT incident as an excuse to pass it should have us a bit nervous.

Hell, they can't even agree to be fiscally responsible and I think that is something that is supposed to be in their job description.

552BDL
December 31, 2012, 08:43 AM
The scope of her proposal is mind blowing. The good news is perhaps that it helps to show their hand and what they are really after. Basically they are very clearly trying to get as close to simply banning all semi autos as they think they can get.

This.

Thumb-hole stocked rifles/shotguns are included to be registered w/NFA. I've a bolt action with a factory built thumb-hole stock!

Furthermore, the ATF is provided with additional funding to help make this happen, in the legislation! Don't think it aint going to happen, and start some serious planning NOW!

txnative1951
December 31, 2012, 03:42 PM
This.

Thumb-hole stocked rifles/shotguns are included to be registered w/NFA. I've a bolt action with a factory built thumb-hole stock!

Furthermore, the ATF is provided with additional funding to help make this happen, in the legislation! Don't think it aint going to happen, and start some serious planning NOW!
Just like the Democrats -- trying to take away our rights and increase the size of the government all at the same time.

Girodin
December 31, 2012, 07:43 PM
Thumb-hole stocked rifles/shotguns are included to be registered w/NFA. I've a bolt action with a factory built thumb-hole stock!

The way I read her summary on her website thumb hole stocks would be considered a "military feature" similar to pistol grips. The bill would ban new, and require registration for existing, semi auto guns with one military feature. Thus your bolt gun would be safe. However a whole bunch of other guns wouldn't be.

Trent
December 31, 2012, 10:25 PM
Thus your bolt gun would be safe.

Safe in round #1 maybe.

As soon as they figure out a competent shooter with a 338 can get kills out to a mile, they'll ban those.

Then the same with 300 Win Mags and 7mm Magnum once they realize how far THOSE are good for before passing through the transsonic threshhold.

Then... get the point?

There's some people on this board who can get high-confidence head shots with a 30 cal out to 1000 yards.

doom
December 31, 2012, 10:33 PM
If I'm not mistaken, semi-auto pistols would also fall under this, guys, instead of playing what if, let's actually do something productive. Call your legislator, get involved, if more people had done that in prior years, we would not have been dealing with silly NFA taxes or some of the other crap we're contending with. Get of your duff and stop being afraid, tell your representative to vote no on feinsteins bill from hell.

Carl N. Brown
December 31, 2012, 10:48 PM
I had no problems with them when I had my FFL and SOT. If you act decently with them, and obey the rules, you can expect to be treated likewise.

ATF business regulators and inspectors are one set of people; the criminal investigators are another.

MenaceMan47
January 1, 2013, 12:55 AM
The thought of having to register what I already have owned for years did kinda spook me. I already have an sbr ar15, but I do own a Norinco MAK90 made in 1993 which I've owned for about 10 years now. It was bought privately, and I don't have a receipt for it (used to, but it got misplaced :P)

How would someone go upon proving ownership in my situation, if this God-awful ban were to ever be passed? I would imagine many people would be in this situation, having to prove they ALREADY owned it before the would-be ban went into effect.

Honestly, given the educated replies on this post, it looks like this new ban would not be feasible at all. But... you never know.

txnative1951
January 1, 2013, 05:36 AM
Obama will hit Ammo with an executive order thru the EPA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-executive-orders-gun_b_2330979.html
I have to wonder at what point the people will finally decide that they've had enough of this excrement, rise up, and take action against these traitors to our constitution. Although there are more gun owners than there are cops and military combined, I suspect that the government is relying on the fact that most people just don't want to cause waves. They figure that as long as they are just slightly reducing our rights each time, no one will stand up to them. Unfortunately, they're probably right. Maybe with a few high profile cases of people standing up to the government when they come to confiscate our firearms, there might result in a movement aimed at restoring our freedoms.

Hacker15E
January 1, 2013, 07:59 AM
Obama will hit Ammo with an executive order thru the EPA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-executive-orders-gun_b_2330979.html

That's not what that article says at all.

Girodin
January 4, 2013, 01:24 PM
Safe in round #1 maybe.

Safe under this particular bill, which was the topic being discussed and thus the context in which the statement I made ought to be read.

As to street sweepers and USAS 12s being reclassified. Their being semi auto or not is largely irrelevant.

The ATF was able to reclassify the street sweeper and USAS 12 because they had statutory authority. The statute did not require the street sweeper to be semi auto to be reclassified. The applicable statute is 18 USC 921(4)(B)


(4) The term “destructive device” means—

(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and

Do you see a semi auto requirement? The thing could be a break action single shot if the attorney general finds it is not generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and it has a bore greater than .05". The street sweeper and the USAS 12 had .72" bores and thus were at the mercy of the AG's determination. He would be limited in some respects as to what he could find not suitable.

Now after reading the statute (it's funny how often that can clear up misconceptions) it should be pretty apparent that Obama cannot simply tell the AG to reclassify ARs or all semi autos. Your typical AR has a .223" bore and thus cannot be found to be a destructive device under this section of the code. What semi auto rifles are you aware of that have a bore over .50" and are currently not classified as DDs? That is the universe of what could be reclassified without changing the statute.

AlexanderA
January 4, 2013, 04:07 PM
I would not bet on the government compensating the owners for confiscation of their property. Just look back at history and you will see that they have confiscated property previously with no compensation. That's what the government did with respect to the slaves in the Civil War. Like it or not, at that time, slaves were legal property and the government declared that you cannot own that property anymore and confiscated them (i.e. set them free).

Yes, but it took a constitutional amendment (the 13th) to do so. Keep in mind that the previous Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually free any slaves -- it applied only to areas that were not under Union control. I don't think a constitutional amendment confiscating guns without compensation would have any chance of passage. There are plenty of legal precedents that say that destroying the economic value of something -- say, by making something illegal to sell or transfer -- is a "taking" that would trigger compensation under the 5th Amendment.

CoRoMo
January 4, 2013, 05:52 PM
...wonder at what point the people will finally decide that they've had enough...
I have my doubt that this is possible. Look at the UK; guns turned in, violent crime goes through the roof, now they are going after knives to be turned in as well, citizens being prosecuted for defending themselves from a violent attacker inside their own home by using a knife as a defensive weapon. When you see the UK rise up and demand their rights back, you'll see the line drawn where the people take a stand.

We have a loooooong way to go before we get to where they are today.

kell490
January 5, 2013, 01:18 AM
Would you support a compromise that would allow them to ban what they define as a Assault weapon, but only allow transfer and new manufacture as an NFA weapon. Also drop the 1986 Machine gun ban allowing newly manufactured Machine guns to be sold again and allow importation as well. Most states where they ban machineguns like California and New York already have AW bans. Would you give up one for the other? This would in effect create registration for a big portion of semi-autos in America.

Girodin
January 5, 2013, 02:45 AM
No. I would not support such a "compromise." Registering all the weapons that would fall under feinsteins definition of assault weapons is an unprecedented step in gun control and not worth the prospect of more affordable full autos. Further, they aren't really interested in any actual compromise. Rather, they simply want you to forfeit more of your rights.

IMHO Feinsteins bill violates the second. Your proposed compromise does not better serve the purposes of the second amendment than the status quo. It also does not better serve most gun owners. You are aware that Feinstein's bill defines this as an assault weapon and would require it to be registered?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVsDEMWW5N6oJrz0tUYEZr5MseGQL1ArHd-ISNWynf44oaGZh9sg

I'd rather save my pennies for a full auto than to sign on to incredibly wide spread gun registration and the other crap being called for by Feinstein and her ilk.

Sam1911
January 5, 2013, 08:29 AM
Except as an idle thought exercise these "how about XYZ compromise" debates really serve no purpose. Not only would we NOT support registering millions of legal firearms already in circulation for some trade-off, but they aren't ASKING what "we" want in return.

Notice that "compromises" in gun control don't work like compromises elsewhere. "They" don't GIVE things, don't offer to loosen regulations in exchange for clamping down elsewhere. They aren't getting the public all riled up over the attack in CT in order to reopen the machine gun registry. :rolleyes: That's just NOT going to come up.

Unless... unless OUR side introduces it as a "poison pill" amendment to some piece of legislation.

Otherwise, no.

kell490
January 5, 2013, 09:09 AM
In politics they aren't going to ask anyone it will come down to a bill being floated around to see how many of them will support it and amendments will change the bill. My bet is Feinstein's bill will not be introduced except maybe at committee level. Obama will probably tell her to wait until Biden's liberal committee gets done. What they will do is create a comprehensive bill with some sort of mental health twist much like 94 crime bill where new AW ban will be a part of it. If they learned anything from 94 if they just do a gun ban it won't get very far. Feinstein's bill is way too restrictive in it's current form to go much of anywhere anyway. They might be able to get a 10 round mag ban again on any new manufacturing much like the old ban. Also depends on if we have more mass shootings seems like last few years there have been a lot of these nut jobs. Actually I hope they do try to pass just a gun ban because that will insure it won't pass Feinstein is stupid to try and push this ban now all it's doing is rallying gun owners. Liberal activism against guns has never been in high numbers as the NRA, and gun owners.

aka108
January 5, 2013, 09:42 AM
The current Administration will do as it pleases, Constitution and other laws be damned. It will impose its will and when questioned will simply say sue us.

Sam1911
January 5, 2013, 09:43 AM
The current Administration will do as it pleases, Constitution and other laws be damned. It will impose its will and when questioned will simply say sue us.Fortunately the administration doesn't pass laws, and it's executive order powers are a lot more limited than most folks (at least on gun boards) seem to believe.

Girodin
January 5, 2013, 12:09 PM
It doesn't pass the laws but it does help to drive the legislative agenda in a number of ways. It also signs them into law. There is a reason the health care law is called obamacare and not pelosicare or Reidcare.

helotaxi
January 5, 2013, 01:31 PM
Fortunately the administration doesn't pass laws, and it's executive order powers are a lot more limited than most folks (at least on gun boards) seem to believe.
The power of an executive order is only restrictive when Congress has the stones to challenge them or someone does in fact sue them. Until then...

Laws have been struck down by the courts in the past as being disproportionately burdensome on law enforcement. There's no way that this proposal could be construed any other way.

kell490
January 6, 2013, 03:26 AM
A friend thinks Obama will use a provisions in the Patriot act to ban firearms using executive orders. The courts have struck down Exec orders when they use them to create laws. Usually the president can only use it when a law has been written allowing for it. Like Bush H used the 1968 GCA to ban imports of non sporting weapons.

jon_in_wv
January 8, 2013, 09:32 PM
Executive orders only apply to implementation of policy of government agencies or to existing laws. He can't change or create laws, I should say legally at least.

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 01:34 PM
SAM1911 Look!! Wha i said earlier in this thread. May not be ammo thru the EPA but...Right...and what?

Biden said they might try to implement some executive orders. Of course. He doesn't say that executive orders give the President the power to ban guns, make magazines illegal, raise taxes, make ARs NFA firearms, etc... and stops short of saying ANYTHING that he thinks those executive orders could do at all.

Nothing new there...

YunGun
January 9, 2013, 04:57 PM
You are aware that Feinstein's bill defines this as an assault weapon and would require it to be registered?

On the contrary - that will be one of the few rifles NOT classified as an 'Assault Weapon' were it to pass (unless that wasn't a .22 caliber rifle?).

Direct quote from the NRA-ILA memo:
"Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s."

Those'll probably be next though....


...First they came for the assault weapons......

Girodin
January 9, 2013, 05:17 PM
Direct quote from the NRA-ILA memo:
"Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s."


Good to see, in some ways anyhow. They may have received a more fleshed out version of her proposals. What she initially had as a summary on her website, would have included that gun.

We shall see what she actually submits. That is the language that will really count.

kell490
January 9, 2013, 05:34 PM
So I'm riding home today I hear that Obama is going to use Executive orders now the only way I can see him doing something that could do much is to try and reclassify all what they call, "assault weapons" as non sporting and required to be registered under NFA like they did with the street sweeper. It will take court action to stop it. NRA will probably get an injunction from a federal court. Hopefully this takes long enough to get to mid term elections. You know Obama would not even say this unless he knows that the house GOP isn't going to pass anything.

Sam1911
January 9, 2013, 09:13 PM
So I'm riding home today I hear that Obama is going to use Executive orders now the only way I can see him doing something that could do much is to try and reclassify all what they call, "assault weapons" as non sporting and required to be registered under NFA like they did with the street sweeper. It will take court action to stop it. NRA will probably get an injunction from a federal court. Hopefully this takes long enough to get to mid term elections. You know Obama would not even say this unless he knows that the house GOP isn't going to pass anything.

ONCE MORE: HE CAN'T DO THAT by E.O. The "street sweepers" were reclassified easily because ALL firearms over .50 cal are technically Title II "Destructive Devices" unless exempted as particularly useful for sporting purposes. Shoguns normally are covered by a blanket exemption as inherently sporting weapons BUT that's rescind-able, and was rescinded in the case of a few particularly scary-looking models.

This is all in the text of the law known as the National Firearms Act. The government already had, and has, the power to change the classification of weapons falling under that description.

Declaring a semi-auto rifle, of greater than 26" overall, and having a barrel over 16" long, and a bore of less than .50 cal to be an NFA firearm would take a re-writing of the NFA, and that can ONLY be done by congress.

mljdeckard
January 9, 2013, 09:19 PM
Can everyone take a deep breath and remember who is saying this?

Agentxman
January 9, 2013, 10:26 PM
let me ask this question. If we were to register our semi autos under nfa. what would stop someone from milling out their lower receiver and make it full auto?

Sam1911
January 10, 2013, 07:05 AM
If we were to register our semi autos under nfa. what would stop someone from milling out their lower receiver and make it full auto?There are five different general types of "firearm" (including silencers) that must be registered now under Title II of the NFA.

Registering a Short Barreled Rifle doesn't let you ALSO make it a machine gun. Registering a machine gun doesn't ALSO let you build a silencer into it.

Different registrations for different firearms.

If somehow, some way, ARs were reclassified as falling under an expanded Title II, they'd be added as another type of registered firearm.

MasterSergeantA
January 10, 2013, 11:32 AM
let me ask this question. If we were to register our semi autos under nfa. what would stop someone from milling out their lower receiver and make it full auto?
To add to what Sam said, what would stop someone from milling out their lower to make it FA is what stops them now...the threat of jail time and a serious fine. If you showed up at a range with your recently registered AR-15 and began firing full automatic, you might draw some unwanted attention. If said attention was in the guise of an ATF agent, you could be asked to produce your Form 1 or 4. The Form would show that your AR was registered (under the new rules) as a SA gun. Bad juju.

AlexanderA
January 10, 2013, 01:44 PM
I agree with what is being said about the various categories of NFA items, and that a new category (military-style semiautomatics) would not necessarily affect the existing categories. But registering literally millions of new guns would be a massive undertaking. The Registry is already a mess. It's quite plausible that the legislation would be worded so as to provide an across-the-board amnesty for everything, so that the ATF would be able to purge the system, and go to better database management. It would be prudent to prepare for any such eventuality.

Sam1911
January 10, 2013, 02:59 PM
To that note, I posted this in another thread:

And, the pie-in-the-sky plan to make AR-15s and/or other "military style auto-loaders" fall under Title II and be registered has about a snowball's chance in hell of passing into law. Forcing registration of approximately 50,000,000 firearms -- but who knows really how many? -- would just about grind the fed.gov to a halt. The ATF is processing about 105,000 Title II registrations a year right now and it takes them 6 months + to get each one done. So, register all semi-auto rifles of the most common type? Yeah...THAT'S 238 YEARS WORTH of registrations they'd have to swallow. You can expect your registration papers back in the year 2251. And they can't nail you for it if they haven't gotten around to processing the paperwork on your "grandfathered" registration...

Still think this is going to happen?

Now look at Canada and their firearms registration law. It was so comprehensively IGNORED throughout most of the country that it became an absolute joke. Unenforced and unenforcable, it eventually was retracted as it showed the government to be utterly too weak to enforce the laws it had passed. The US Congress will not risk passing a law that the citizens have the physical ability ... in fact, almost utter certainty ... of ignoring and refusing to comply with, with near certain immunity.

MasterSergeantA
January 10, 2013, 03:16 PM
Well said, Sam!

mljdeckard
January 10, 2013, 03:28 PM
^^ Concur.

AlexanderA
January 10, 2013, 05:40 PM
The idea for Title II registration of military-style semiautomatics was a desperation move on Feinstein's part. She has to find a way to avoid an outright confiscation, because that would trigger a 5th Amendment "taking" for which compensation would be required, and the government simply doesn't have the money. So the antis think that these guns can be choked with red tape, bringing them under the NFA registry. This obviously won't work. What "experts" are advising these people?

BigRugerLover
January 10, 2013, 05:56 PM
Advice please - the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, mentioned several times in this post, refers to private property "taken for public use." If they take my guns under this clause, it won't be "for public use" - they will destroy them. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know about this - will a knowledgeable person please add your two cents worth?

AlexanderA
January 10, 2013, 08:32 PM
There have been court cases (going all the way to the Supreme Court) that held that if the government destroys the economic value of something that was previously legally owned -- for example, by confiscating it -- that's tantamount to a "taking for public use." I don't have the citations off hand, but I'm sure someone could look them up. The big exception, of course, was the freeing of the slaves, but it took a Civil War and a constitutional amendment to do it. If the South hadn't fought the Civil War, the owners would have had to have been compensated for the value of their slaves.

kell490
January 10, 2013, 08:59 PM
The commit that was made about full auto at the range I have never been asked once to produce my paperwork at Ben Avery's shooting range in Phoenix, AZ for 20 years of shooting there. One time I saw a guy shooting a MP5 full auto. I was talking to him about registration I could tell he had no idea what I was talking about. This leads back to the point that a federal ban on AW is going to be tough to enforce in Arizona where local law enforcement has no desire to deal with federal gun bans.

Hokkmike
January 10, 2013, 10:31 PM
Well, the OP is GREAT question. I keep going back and forth on "would I" or "Wouldn't I" comply. I really don't know. Many say it won't, can't happen. Others say it is likely. We are debating the hypothetical. At least this is true with the extent of knowledge that I have. I hope the really good pro-gun legal minds are on top of this.

mokin
January 11, 2013, 11:45 PM
I like the way you explain that Sam. On the other hand, from the responses I've recieved from my representatives and things I've read in the news, I'm not real sure how firm of a grasp on reality some law-makers have.

Sambo82
January 14, 2013, 12:10 AM
Now wait a sec; I keep hearing that the BATFE can't add semi auto's to the NFA because they weren't covered under the original legislation. What about the times the BATFE simply "decided" that DIAS's, Lightning Links, M16 parts and the like, were "machine guns". Keep in mind that these parts don't have to be found in conjunction with an Ar15. They are, by themselves, "machine guns". Heck, the BATFE once even decided that a 16" shoestring was a "machine gun".

The reality is that they've got alot of wiggle room in this matter. Their website lists the definition of a machine gun; "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"

Anyone one remember that shipment of airsoft rifles the BATFE seized because they could be "readily restored" to be machine guns?

Is all this hyperbole? Maybe. I personally think that all this will blow over in a few months. But don't tell me the BATFE "can't" call semi auto's "machine guns" when they've done it plenty of times with non firearms. God forbid if another Sandy Hook happens in the near future we'll see first hand.

Sambo82
January 14, 2013, 12:13 AM
So to expound, if the BATFE gets to decide what "readily restored" means, whats to stop them from classifying Ar15's under that definition?

Shadow 7D
January 14, 2013, 01:17 AM
They do,
except only when you have the REST of the FA parts
if you have a FA trigger and a AR lower, you are in possession of a MG

But if you only have one and not the other (except certain parts)
just like you can buy a parts kit with the FA trigger, you just can't build the receiver to take it.

Sam1911
January 14, 2013, 05:48 AM
Sambo82,

Their own prior definitions and statements could easily be used to argue that point. Reclassifying tens of millions of guns at a stroke isn't the same sort of "inside baseball" detail as defining a DIAS as a machine gun. One affects a few people who are actually trying to skirt the law and don't have the pull to really fight the question, and would probably lose anyway because their device does indeed work the way the ATF says is against the law.

The other affects millions of families across the country and causes them a direct harm, while explicitly contradicting decades of former rulings to the contrary. That's going to be far too much egregious harm caused to far too many citizens to slip in as and administrative change without taking it through the legislature and the courts.

AlexanderA
January 14, 2013, 10:04 AM
The time for ATF to rule that the AR-15 was "readily convertible" would have been around 1964, when Colt first came out with the civilian version of the M-16. In fact, ATF could easily have ruled that at that time. But there apparently was an "under the radar" discussion between Colt and ATF on what was acceptable, and Colt had the influence to make its views prevail.

What's not generally remembered is that Colt had to temporarily pull the AR-15 off the market around 1970, when the ATF pointed out that merely removing the disconnector could cause uncontrolled automatic fire. That's when Colt went back to the drawing board and came up with the idea of the notched hammer and the unshrouded bolt carrier, so that the gun would jam if the disconnector was removed. With these changes, they were able to re-introduce the gun. Since then, there have been constant tweaks in the design (such as putting a hardened steel insert around the FCG) to address various ATF concerns.

Anyway, a long-standing precedent like this is not easily going to be overturned.

MasterSergeantA
January 15, 2013, 01:53 PM
if you have a FA trigger and a AR lower, you are in possession of a MG

Not quite. I can run a FA hammer in my AR all day and, so long as nothing ever breaks and causes the gun to run away, no notice will be taken. This has been discussed before in the matter of the FA bolt carriers. Not a problem. Now someone 'might' wonder why the spare parts you have laying out on your bench includes the sear and sear pin...but that is still not technically a violation because there is no way to put them in your lower until you (stupidly) drill another hole. But they are better put away somewhere against a 'rainy day'.

And if I were on a range and an ATF agent...or any other LE type...asked me to open my AR so he/she could see what trigger I had in it, I would smile and politely ask to see the warrant.

If you enjoyed reading about "What if BATF Adds Semi Autos to the NFA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!