Class 3 slip ups

[firesky101]

Ok, so we all know unless we have a special licence that manufacturing a full auto is a big no-no. What if a gunsmith screws up a trigger job, and then fixes the problem after the test firing. Is there any kind of protection from these screw ups, or does the ATF not care at all. I ask because of the newest episode of American Guns (I know its a TV show, I am not trying to create one of those threads), they "accidentally" created a full auto tommy gun. I was pretty sure that they are not a class 2 manufacturer, so I thought that was a pretty bad thing to show on TV. So there is the question Does the ATF have no qualms about prosecuting a gunsmith that accidentally screws something up, or is there some kind of protection in the law for smiths?

 

[p2000sk]

To answer your questions in order, yes they have no qualms about it, and no to the second unless it was a type 02/07 FFL holding type of gunsmith... or something to that effect.
ATF is a bunch of friendly folks, but they do have procedures to follow. Give them a slam dunk case of a violation, they HAVE to run the ball from halfcourt through the basket with a showboat victory dance... it's their job.

I did a quick search dsc.discovery.com/tv/american-guns/ and I would be surprised if they weren't SOTs' with all the money behind them. Otherwise, maybe some hollywood trickery you saw, like bait and switch.

 

[newfalguy101]

I cant address American guns, BUT, I do know of a well known FALsmith who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending a malfunctioning FAL against a charge of having an illegal machine gun.

 

[newfalguy101]

Actually,I would be suprised to find out they have a license to build class 3 guns, I base this completely on the fact I have never seen them buy, sell, or build anything SBR,SBS, or machine gun.

Then again, I havent seen every show...

 

[ec4321]

To answer your questions in order, yes they have no qualms about it, and no to the second unless it was a type 02/07 FFL holding type of gunsmith... or something to that effect.
ATF is a bunch of friendly folks, but they do have procedures to follow. Give them a slam dunk case of a violation, they HAVE to run the ball from halfcourt through the basket with a showboat victory dance... it's their job.

I disagree.

It is not the job of our justice system to pervert the spirit of the law and try to force it upon situations for which it was never intended nor gloat about it.... that's ridiculous.

In fact, it's just the opposite.

 

[medalguy]

Or should be.....

 

[CoRoMo]

Here's how the term 'machine gun' is defined by law. With language like this...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

...is designed to shoot... automatically... ...designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for...

...I can't imagine that mistakes would be considered 'intentional designs'.

 

[ec4321]

Here's how the term 'machine gun' is defined by law. With language like this...



...I can't imagine that mistakes would be considered 'intentional designs'.

They wouldn't. However that doesn't mean it's out of the realm of possibility that an AUSA wouldn't take such a case and push the charge anyway. There was one such case where exactly that point, intent, was in question.

Some guy had a defective trigger and his AR shot multiple rounds with one trigger pull on occasion and he was charged. It seems like a rail job on it's face, the huge mistake the owner had was instead of addressing the malfunction, rather he seemed to be possibly enjoying the situation, loaned out the firearm to be shot like that for kicks, etc... that was his mistake.

 

[CoRoMo]

It sounds like you're referring to David Olofson's case. His AR did not have a defective trigger. He installed M16 components, intentionally designing the weapon to fire automatically.

 

[ec4321]

It sounds like you're referring to David Olofson's case. His AR did not have a defective trigger. He installed M16 components, intentionally designing the weapon to fire automatically.

It was Olofson's case, I had to look it up.

Although, our understanding of the circumstances are quite different.

"At the time of manufacture, this model of rifle was legally manufactured with a few M16 fire control parts because these parts by themselves will not cause automatic fire. Olofson's rifle malfunctioned at a shooting range called "The Conservation Club" as a result of the hammer not properly resetting and instead following the bolt forward, emitting multiple rounds and immediately jamming three times in a row. "Hammer follow" is a dangerous and unpredictable malfunction that can happen to semi automatic firearms when a part is worn (or excessively lubricated.) The quick multiple rounds aroused suspicion in someone at the range that the rifle was possibly an automatic weapon, which are not allowed at many public ranges. Police were called and later that day the rifle was confiscated from Robert Kiernicki at his home.[1][2][dubious – discuss][verification needed]"

 

[CoRoMo]

The very next paragraph of that Wikipedia entry is quite imperative.

 

[WardenWolf]

Things that happen during TESTING at a gunsmith are one thing. As long as they are not sold or returned to a customer that way, or kept in that malfunctioning state, generally there is no problem. Things go wrong. Parts break or don't fit properly. That's what gunsmiths are supposed to fix.

 

[ec4321]

The very next paragraph of that Wikipedia entry is quite imperative.

Yes I read that. However, everything I've read indicates that this all came about by accident as a result of the hammer follow. Where David made a mistake is that instead of having the issue fixed - he allegedly reveled in it. Fired it himself that way, bragged about it, even loaned it out to be enjoyed in that state - not intentionally designed that way, but intentionally kept it that way - according to the government.