bushmaster1313
Member
If someone manufactures a toy AR with a lower/reveiver that would work with a genuine upper, is either the assembled toy AR or the toy lower by itself a BATFE firearm?
Is a "toy" Lower a BATFE receiver?
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
ask the folks on the west coast who got busted/confiscated
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
If you can assemble it to where it will fire live ammo then yes, it can be considered a firearm. It's already happened. A toy maker made an airsoft receiver that was identical inside and out to an AR receiver, so much so that even the real fire control parts fit.
Probably wouldn't survive many rounds fired, but at that point it was legally a firearm.
Now the funny part is that this was a very high end airsoft rifle. News story below says that to make it "real" would cost about $1100, more than buying an actual AR.
The argument was that felons could buy one and convert it. Right, like they would take the time to do that when they can just go buy a stolen gun.
But, it's hard to argue that the thing doesn't meet the definition of firearm. The danger in that is, as the article linked mentions, the upper is where the 'work' is required, you could make a lower out of cardboard and duct tape and get it to fire maybe one round out of a real upper if you really wanted to.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/exclusive-toy-gun-sold-easily-turned-real-thing/
Probably wouldn't survive many rounds fired, but at that point it was legally a firearm.
Now the funny part is that this was a very high end airsoft rifle. News story below says that to make it "real" would cost about $1100, more than buying an actual AR.
The argument was that felons could buy one and convert it. Right, like they would take the time to do that when they can just go buy a stolen gun.
But, it's hard to argue that the thing doesn't meet the definition of firearm. The danger in that is, as the article linked mentions, the upper is where the 'work' is required, you could make a lower out of cardboard and duct tape and get it to fire maybe one round out of a real upper if you really wanted to.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/exclusive-toy-gun-sold-easily-turned-real-thing/
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Just as a counterpoint, there are "dummy" receivers made for things like Thompsons and other vintage sub-guns that look a lot like the real thing and into which you can assemble a parts kit from an original rifle, but that don't operate at all. Those are not firearms.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Give ATF 6 months and $100,000 of tax dollars to play with and I bet they could fix that....
This is why all gun laws are bad. I suppose that if I had a milling machine and a block of aluminum in my possession I could potentially have an illegal machine gun the way ATF interprets things.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Heh, heh... I own steel and a file. I'm only a few little steps away from jail time! 
AlexanderA
Member
TexasRifleman wrote:
The thing is, ATF put itself into a bind when it disallowed the registrations of all those "incomplete" machine guns that were in the process of manufacture on May 19, 1986. A precedent was established -- if they weren't registrable as machine guns, then they weren't guns at all, and were thus totally unregulated. This is where we get the so-called "80%" completion rule. (There's actually no "80% rule." As best as I can figure from court cases, you might have constructive possession of a gun if the receiver can be completed in 8 hours or less in a well-equipped machine shop. The ATF is being deliberately vague about this.)
The thing is, ATF put itself into a bind when it disallowed the registrations of all those "incomplete" machine guns that were in the process of manufacture on May 19, 1986. A precedent was established -- if they weren't registrable as machine guns, then they weren't guns at all, and were thus totally unregulated. This is where we get the so-called "80%" completion rule. (There's actually no "80% rule." As best as I can figure from court cases, you might have constructive possession of a gun if the receiver can be completed in 8 hours or less in a well-equipped machine shop. The ATF is being deliberately vague about this.)
MtnCreek
Member
Constructive possession, I'm sure.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think this receiver would have to function with an AR as is to be considered a firearm by BATF. Take an 80% receiver; it’s been cast and milled to a point. Additional milling would make it a firearm, but would not insure function. Also, de-mil rules; you could take a receiver and cut the front takedown pine area off of it. It would still be a firearm, but it wouldn’t function.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I think that's because they simply don't know either. None of that stuff is in the law, it all depends on court cases. I think ATF is very afraid of a case like this getting into court.
Look at how they reacted to the Thompson Contender case initially, basically rejecting the Supreme Court decision for years until finally relenting.
Their "interpretations" of many if not most gun laws would probably not line up with what a court would say.
baylorattorney
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 489
Federal gun laws mean if Big Brother wants to squeeze the liberty out of you, regardless of the truth, you will be screwed, blued, and tattooed. They make up the rules as they go along and don't expect them to inform you.
Waste not want not.
Waste not want not.
AlexanderA
Member
BTW, I might add that, applying the "8 hour" machine-shop rule (if it exists), every single semiautomatic AR-15 is potentially a machine gun, since it can be converted in much less than 8 hours of shop time, and the full-auto fire control parts are readily available at any gun show. However, it would be politically impossible for ATF to make such a blanket reclassification. The lesson here is that there's safety in numbers -- the AR-15 horse is out of the barn, so to speak.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
You can still buy black powder revolvers and German flare guns through the mail and both can be safely converted to fire live rounds.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
But converting an unrifled flare pistol to shoot fixed ammunition (without a Form 1) would be just as illegal as making an unregistered machine gun, so kind of a moot point.
LawofThirds
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2008
- Messages
- 474
The issue with the gas powered airsoft guns was not that it was an unregistered firearm, but rather an exact replica (in slightly lower grade aluminum) of a full auto M16 receiver. Put in a FA trigger group and it's an upper away from rock and roll.
It's a shame too, they're nice airsoft guns.
It's a shame too, they're nice airsoft guns.
bushmaster1313
Member
Definitions please.
What is a BATFE firearm?
When does an AR type lower, on its way from a chunk of steel to a fully machined serial numbered lower, become a BATFE firearm?
Does it depend on the maker's intent while it is being made?
What is a BATFE firearm?
When does an AR type lower, on its way from a chunk of steel to a fully machined serial numbered lower, become a BATFE firearm?
Does it depend on the maker's intent while it is being made?
NavyLCDR
member
What is a BATFE firearm?
18 USC 921:
When does an AR type lower, on its way from a chunk of steel to a fully machined serial numbered lower, become a BATFE firearm?
At the point at which it "may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."
Does it depend on the maker's intent while it is being made?
Not once it "may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."
18 USC 921:
When does an AR type lower, on its way from a chunk of steel to a fully machined serial numbered lower, become a BATFE firearm?
At the point at which it "may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."
Does it depend on the maker's intent while it is being made?
Not once it "may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
No, you buy rifled inserts that allow you to fire .22 LR. They make them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUdsNB2xSbs
medalguy
Member
When does an AR type lower, on its way from a chunk of steel to a fully machined serial numbered lower, become a BATFE firearm?
At the point at which it "may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."
Kinda like the definition of "is"?
At the point at which it "may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive."
Kinda like the definition of "is"?
Shadow 7D
Member
The issue on some of the lowers were that they were designed to MILSPEC
they were basically AR lowers with toy guts, all it has to do is fire ONCE
that it, if they can duck tape the lower or whatever together and get it to shoot, that'll be the BAFTE's grounds
Shoot, you could constructive possession of a silencer for having a pop bottle and tape (similar, one decibel reduced once, is a silencer)
MtnCreek
Member
Do pop bottles and pillows go on a from 1 or form 4?
Shadow 7D
Member
If it didn't cost 200 bucks I'd be tempted to find out...
mortablunt
Member
It definitely would be. If it can work with other gun parts and fire real bullets, then it's a firearm.
F-111 John
Member
The point of the airsoft gun was that it is the lower that is the serialized part, and the one requiring a 4473 to transfer. You can buy complete uppers without a 4473.
So, a prohibited person could purchase an upper, and purchase an airsoft gun, and be able to construct a functioning firearm without any special metalworking skills, which meets the "readily convertable" test.
So, a prohibited person could purchase an upper, and purchase an airsoft gun, and be able to construct a functioning firearm without any special metalworking skills, which meets the "readily convertable" test.
Whatever the ATF says.
"May readily be converted" is entirely discretionary.
Readily converted to fire a projectile? Many things are readily converted to fire a projectile, especially just one time. All it needs to do is hold a cartridge and hit the rear of it. Not very complicated.
If it does half of that, it is 'readily converted' if you can convert it to do the other half.
Now to reliably work, or cycle a semi-auto reliably, or last long may be a whole different story. But that is not part of the definition. It doesn't need to work well, it just had to fire the round, and since any tube and something to hit the back of the cartridge can fire at least one round, anything is 'readily converted' if declared to be.
Now if it actually looks like a firearm OR works well, they are less likely to be told they are extending their discretion unreasonably by a court.
An airsoft gun looks like a gun, so whether it breaks after one or two uses, and couldn't even cycle a full magazine without being destroyed doesn't matter, the fact that it has the appearance of a firearm means they will find support from a court. Appearance matters.
Just look at how 'readily converted' is applied to machineguns.
Any gun is a machinegun if the ATF says so. Because most firearms can 'readily be converted' with a drop in auto sear, lightning link, or some similar simple piece of metal.
Whether one commercially exists or needs to be fabricated, most designs are a simple piece of metal in a certain shape away from full auto.
Or the infamous shoe string, many guns are just a shoe string away from being a machinegun, that certainly makes them 'readily converted'.
Yet most are entirely legal and not considered machineguns by the ATF, and they don't declare them to be 'readily converted'.
Yet some guns that are actually more difficult to convert are considered 'readily converted' and legally machineguns even though they are only semi-auto.
"Readily converted' means whatever the ATF says, as long as they are careful not to upset the wrong people and lose their discretionary power.
So it is entirely discretionary. As AlexanderA said there is safety in numbers.
If you are using a commercially manufactured product then the ATF is less likely to harass an individual, because thousands of people own them, and charges for mere possession impact a much larger number of people.
Making serious arbitrary rulings less likely.
However if it is a rare or unique firearm, like one you designed for example, it could be 10x harder to convert to full auto than many commercial firearms, but the ATF won't be effecting many thousands of people with any arbitrary ruling on it. Just you. So they have a lot more freedom of discretion without anywhere near the risk of backlash.
So 'readily converted' to full auto, or 'readily converted' to fire a projectile, etc is all just bureaucratic gibberish for 'if we say say so'.
If the ATF says it is a firearm then it is. Unless a court declares otherwise, or has declared otherwise in the past in a manner that set legal precedence.
The ATF intentionally maneuvers to reduce how many such precedence are set.
As was done in the SC case where they retracted the charges for a vertical forward grip on a pistol when it became clear precedence could be set that made all vertical forward grips on handguns unrestricted.
They pursued other charges and let that one go, still got their man, just shuffled their charges around to insure no precedent that could limit them in the future was set.
"May readily be converted" is entirely discretionary.
Readily converted to fire a projectile? Many things are readily converted to fire a projectile, especially just one time. All it needs to do is hold a cartridge and hit the rear of it. Not very complicated.
If it does half of that, it is 'readily converted' if you can convert it to do the other half.
Now to reliably work, or cycle a semi-auto reliably, or last long may be a whole different story. But that is not part of the definition. It doesn't need to work well, it just had to fire the round, and since any tube and something to hit the back of the cartridge can fire at least one round, anything is 'readily converted' if declared to be.
Now if it actually looks like a firearm OR works well, they are less likely to be told they are extending their discretion unreasonably by a court.
An airsoft gun looks like a gun, so whether it breaks after one or two uses, and couldn't even cycle a full magazine without being destroyed doesn't matter, the fact that it has the appearance of a firearm means they will find support from a court. Appearance matters.
Just look at how 'readily converted' is applied to machineguns.
Any gun is a machinegun if the ATF says so. Because most firearms can 'readily be converted' with a drop in auto sear, lightning link, or some similar simple piece of metal.
Whether one commercially exists or needs to be fabricated, most designs are a simple piece of metal in a certain shape away from full auto.
Or the infamous shoe string, many guns are just a shoe string away from being a machinegun, that certainly makes them 'readily converted'.
Yet most are entirely legal and not considered machineguns by the ATF, and they don't declare them to be 'readily converted'.
Yet some guns that are actually more difficult to convert are considered 'readily converted' and legally machineguns even though they are only semi-auto.
"Readily converted' means whatever the ATF says, as long as they are careful not to upset the wrong people and lose their discretionary power.
So it is entirely discretionary. As AlexanderA said there is safety in numbers.
If you are using a commercially manufactured product then the ATF is less likely to harass an individual, because thousands of people own them, and charges for mere possession impact a much larger number of people.
Making serious arbitrary rulings less likely.
However if it is a rare or unique firearm, like one you designed for example, it could be 10x harder to convert to full auto than many commercial firearms, but the ATF won't be effecting many thousands of people with any arbitrary ruling on it. Just you. So they have a lot more freedom of discretion without anywhere near the risk of backlash.
So 'readily converted' to full auto, or 'readily converted' to fire a projectile, etc is all just bureaucratic gibberish for 'if we say say so'.
If the ATF says it is a firearm then it is. Unless a court declares otherwise, or has declared otherwise in the past in a manner that set legal precedence.
The ATF intentionally maneuvers to reduce how many such precedence are set.
As was done in the SC case where they retracted the charges for a vertical forward grip on a pistol when it became clear precedence could be set that made all vertical forward grips on handguns unrestricted.
They pursued other charges and let that one go, still got their man, just shuffled their charges around to insure no precedent that could limit them in the future was set.
Last edited:
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
Sounds like my hand is a receiver, just have to hold the cartridge, nail, and then strike it with a hammer. Actually that sounds like my hand is the barrel and my body is the firearm. I'm legally a firearm!
- Status