InkEd
Member
I was curious if it would be possible to legally convert a new production Thompson to full auto? If so, would it just be the standard $200 tax stamp (in addition to the conversion cost, of course)?
Conversion Legality
- Thread starter InkEd
- Start date
- Status
Jim Watson
Member
Ssomebody knowledgeable in NFA will be along, but the short answer is no.
At least not for an American Commoner.
A manufacturer could do it for a government agency as on Sons of a Gun last week.
At one time there was a loophole that let a daisy chain of small time manufacturers who built up "samples" and passed them around among themselves as evidence of "doing business" when they were really just riding their hobby, but I think that has been closed.
At least not for an American Commoner.
A manufacturer could do it for a government agency as on Sons of a Gun last week.
At one time there was a loophole that let a daisy chain of small time manufacturers who built up "samples" and passed them around among themselves as evidence of "doing business" when they were really just riding their hobby, but I think that has been closed.
Quiet
Member
All MGs manufactured after May 1986 can only be possessed by FFL/SOT dealers and Mil/Gov/LE agencies.
FFL/SOT dealers, other than Type 07-FFL Class 2 SOT manufacturers, also require a LE demonstration letter for a specific post-'86 MG.
FFL/SOT dealers, other than Type 07-FFL Class 2 SOT manufacturers, also require a LE demonstration letter for a specific post-'86 MG.
A Type 07 FFL Class 3 SOT can legally convert a new production semi-auto Thompson to full-auto, it would be considered a post-'86 MG. But, it could only be legally transfered to FFL/SOT dealer or a Mil/Gov/LE agency. If the Type 07 Class 2 SOT loses their SOT status, they would need to transfer out the Thompson to a FFL/SOT dealer or Mil/Gov/LE agency.InkEd said:
Last edited:
InkEd
Member
So, if I was to get an FFL license could I do it? What about making a "post sample" if I also owned machining equipment?
o Unforgiven o
Member
Sure, but you had better be in the business of making and selling firearms and not fueling a hobby of yours.
Sport45
Member
And your business had better involve selling firearms to a law enforcement or other appropriate government agencies.
451 Detonics
Member
I believe you would need more than an 01 FFL. You would also have to pay a tax named the “Special Occupational Tax” to conduct business with machine guns and various other “National Firearms Act weapons. This $500 tax is required to be paid yearly. To make a NFA firearm you will need to obtain a Class two SOT standing, you want a manufacturer FFL, which includes Type seven, ten – and pay an annual $1000 or $500 ( reduced rate for tiny makers ) tax due each July 1.
You will also need the afore mentioned letter of intent from a law enforcement or military agency. Also if you let your license lapse you will have to turn in any firearms you manufactured or sell them to a LEA or government agency.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
451 Detonics has it almost completely right.
You need to have your manufacturer's FFL -- which means you'll have to fulfill the legal requirements of having a business making guns (may include land use zoning for business purposes, business licenses, insurance, etc.) and then apply to pay the Special Occupational Tax.
Even though you don't want to export anything, you will also need to pay ITAR, which is $1,750 a year, I think.
The letter of intent generally doesn't apply to SOT 02s, as they may make guns for testing and development purposes.
The letter of intent is needed by SOT 03s (those are machine gun DEALERS, not manufacturers) when they want to purchase post-'86 samples. While they can buy all the "transferable," pre-'86 guns they want -- because those can be sold to any non-restricted person -- they can't simply buy any post-sample that tickles their fancy. They aren't (supposed to be) holding the license just to increase their own collections. They need letters of intent to show that some legal potential customer (like the local PD) wants them to procure a ... RPK, Glock 18, M240B, or whatever ... to demonstrate pursuant to a possible purchase.
You need to have your manufacturer's FFL -- which means you'll have to fulfill the legal requirements of having a business making guns (may include land use zoning for business purposes, business licenses, insurance, etc.) and then apply to pay the Special Occupational Tax.
Even though you don't want to export anything, you will also need to pay ITAR, which is $1,750 a year, I think.
The letter of intent generally doesn't apply to SOT 02s, as they may make guns for testing and development purposes.
The letter of intent is needed by SOT 03s (those are machine gun DEALERS, not manufacturers) when they want to purchase post-'86 samples. While they can buy all the "transferable," pre-'86 guns they want -- because those can be sold to any non-restricted person -- they can't simply buy any post-sample that tickles their fancy. They aren't (supposed to be) holding the license just to increase their own collections. They need letters of intent to show that some legal potential customer (like the local PD) wants them to procure a ... RPK, Glock 18, M240B, or whatever ... to demonstrate pursuant to a possible purchase.
Last edited:
Bubbles
Member
Sam got it almost right, except ITAR is now $2250/year (it went up not too long ago, and I've heard that it's expected to go up again soon).
Also, 07/C2 FFL's do need the letter of intent from a LE agency to purchase a post-sample machine gun, but none is needed to manufacture one. The only time the letter isn't required is when an FFL/SOT is going out of business, but even then a dealer still needs a letter to buy the post-sample, where a manufacturer or importer does not.
Yes, the regulations are convoluted...
Also, 07/C2 FFL's do need the letter of intent from a LE agency to purchase a post-sample machine gun, but none is needed to manufacture one. The only time the letter isn't required is when an FFL/SOT is going out of business, but even then a dealer still needs a letter to buy the post-sample, where a manufacturer or importer does not.
Yes, the regulations are convoluted...
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Up again? Sheesh. How 'bout a reduced rate for small companies, like they do with the SOT itself?
Bubbles
Member
Nope. When the fee initially went from $500 to $1750 I submitted one of only 29 public comments, and I asked then for the fee structure to be set based on the company's annual revenue. No dice.
The $2250 is just the annual registration fee. To actually export something requires additional fees...
InkEd
Member
Sheesh! What the heck does the government have against us owning full auto weapons?
I am willing to pay for a tax stamp and jump through a few hoops. However, I don't think I should have to pay crazy annual fees and jump through flaming hoops while riding a unicycle.
The whole thing just seems absurd to me.
I am willing to pay for a tax stamp and jump through a few hoops. However, I don't think I should have to pay crazy annual fees and jump through flaming hoops while riding a unicycle.
The whole thing just seems absurd to me.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
It isn't necessarily that "the government" has a problem with you owning full-auto weapons.
The problem is that one of our elected representatives introduced an amendment to a very pro-gun bill (called the Firearm Owners Protection Act) back in 1986 and that "poison pill" amendment closed the National Firearms Act (1934) registry to all newly manufactured machine guns.
It's fine to rail against "the government" and to believe that the ATF or whomever has an agenda against "us." But the truth is that we the people elected a congress critter, and that individual (William Hughes of NJ) introduced a bit of law that would hurt us, and the rest of our elected folks didn't force it to be removed and voted the law into being, and the president signed it. So, the law is what it is.
By the same, or similar, process, we'll have to get that provision reversed, if we the people want it to be changed.
...
All these extra "hoops" you don't want to have to jump through have everything to do with the laws surrounding doing business as a gun maker or gun dealer, and nothing to do with private ownership of a machine gun. They aren't aimed at keeping you from owning a certain kind of gun, at all. You are considering becoming a gun manufacturer so it shouldn't be terribly surprising that there are a lot of controls, taxes, licenses, etc. involved with starting that kind of business.
The fact that you are only considering doing this so that you can own a certain kind of cool gun doesn't change that reality.
It's very much as though you were looking into starting your own trucking company or bus line just because you want to be able to drive across town.
The problem is that one of our elected representatives introduced an amendment to a very pro-gun bill (called the Firearm Owners Protection Act) back in 1986 and that "poison pill" amendment closed the National Firearms Act (1934) registry to all newly manufactured machine guns.
It's fine to rail against "the government" and to believe that the ATF or whomever has an agenda against "us." But the truth is that we the people elected a congress critter, and that individual (William Hughes of NJ) introduced a bit of law that would hurt us, and the rest of our elected folks didn't force it to be removed and voted the law into being, and the president signed it. So, the law is what it is.
By the same, or similar, process, we'll have to get that provision reversed, if we the people want it to be changed.
...
All these extra "hoops" you don't want to have to jump through have everything to do with the laws surrounding doing business as a gun maker or gun dealer, and nothing to do with private ownership of a machine gun. They aren't aimed at keeping you from owning a certain kind of gun, at all. You are considering becoming a gun manufacturer so it shouldn't be terribly surprising that there are a lot of controls, taxes, licenses, etc. involved with starting that kind of business.
The fact that you are only considering doing this so that you can own a certain kind of cool gun doesn't change that reality.
It's very much as though you were looking into starting your own trucking company or bus line just because you want to be able to drive across town.
Last edited:
The short answer is that it is illegal for you to convert a Thompson to full auto. You would not want to convert a new closed bolt anyway.
You can purchase a transferable West Hurley Thompson registered before 1986 with a $200 tax stamp at a cost of about $13,500. There is no license required just the tax stamp and lots of money.
gyvel
Member
How about doing away with ATF and all the NFA's completely. ATF was originally founded as a tax collection agency and somehow evolved into a bumbling, dimwitted law enforcement agency. (Duhhhh... Let's let folks do straw purchases so we can track the guns to Mexico...)
In addition, there was quite a bit of racial and ethnic prejudice behind the enctment of the NFA's of '34 and '35. (Not to mention the Sullivan Law, but that's another story.)
In addition, there was quite a bit of racial and ethnic prejudice behind the enctment of the NFA's of '34 and '35. (Not to mention the Sullivan Law, but that's another story.)
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Yeah sadly this whole "it's the government" nonsense simply isn't true.
There are not enough voters interested in reversing the laws in place, including many gun owners. If there were we could simply demand our representatives repeal NFA or at least Hughes.
So, we the minority don't get our way. That's "democracy" at work.
There are not enough voters interested in reversing the laws in place, including many gun owners. If there were we could simply demand our representatives repeal NFA or at least Hughes.
So, we the minority don't get our way. That's "democracy" at work.
- Status
