Legality of semi-auto self-built firearms.

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

artherd

member
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
2,516
Location
An Elevated Position in the Bay Area, PRK
As per both the ATF and California DOJ, it is legal to complete an '80% reciver' firearm, and it is legal to build your own rifle from steel billets.

What I am looking for is, exactly 'how hard' does it have to be to convert to fully automatic before the BATF may consider it a 'machinegun?'

Ie, Glocks can fire full-auto with drop-in parts. Worn 1911s and SKSs often go full auto on their own, as do many other guns.



What I want to build is a software controled semi-automatic rifle. (similar to Remington's E-Tronix but semi-automatic action.) One would have to add code to make it full-auto. Just like one would have to add a new slider plate to a Glock 17 to make a full-auto. Or add code to the Remington E-Tronix to make it full-auto.


Any good places to start for information?
 
Basically, if your firearm is capable of easy conversion to a full-auto weapon, it's already illegal. It doesn't matter whether the conversion is mechanical or software - the capability alone is what puts it over the edge. Don't even think about it unless you want to spend time at the Uncle Sam Hotel!
 
Not a lot of information seems to be available on this one since it hasnt been tried much.

However the ATF seems to have decided that anything that fires from an open bolt is a no-no because of how easy they are to convert i would think that you would need to include some type of mechanical method for preventing full auto fire.

This is all just speculation of course. You COULD just contact the ATF and see what they think.
 
At the moment, in the Ninth circuit, the precident is that a home made machine gun, which hasn't been, and won't be in interstate commerce, is legal under federal law. That's the conclusion of the Stewart case. Now, that does you no good in California, because of state law, but for all I know there might be a state within the Ninth circuit which doesn't have any state law against machineguns.

If you try to take advantage of this, be sure you have a darned good lawyer on retainer, and plenty of funds to pay for the court case, because if you get caught, it WILL go to court. And you'll probably lose; In my opinion the only reason they ruled that way in the Stewart case was because he was already doomed on so many points that it was a free chance to razz the Supreme court over the implications of their commerce clause decisions. If it came to somebody who had no other strikes against them, they'd find some way to distinguish the case.

How hard does it have to be to convert, before it isn't a machine gun? They're deliberately vague about it, but the line seems to be that, if you have the gun, and the knowlege and means to convert it, you will be legally regarded as having the machine gun in your posession, even if you've never actually made the conversion.

As a machinist I'm worse off than the average person; Since I have the skills, materials, and tools to build a machine gun from scratch, if I ever got caught in posession of the plans for one, just a detailed drawing, mind you, I could be prosecuted for possessing a machine gun, even if I never had made a move to build one. Really pisses me off, too, 'cause I'm curious how they work, but if I ever satisfied my curiousity the feds would be able to charge me with a felony.

Go get a Hellfire trigger; Last I heard, THOSE were legal.
 
The Remington EtronX can't go full auto with a change of software. It's bolt-action, and I think actually simple circuitry, not software.

edit:
As a machinist I'm worse off than the average person; Since I have the skills, materials, and tools to build a machine gun from scratch, if I ever got caught in posession of the plans for one, just a detailed drawing, mind you, I could be prosecuted for possessing a machine gun, even if I never had made a move to build one. Really pisses me off, too, 'cause I'm curious how they work, but if I ever satisfied my curiousity the feds would be able to charge me with a felony.
Click to expand...

Who's the bright one behind that decision? If you just have plans, you can be prosecuted and lose your time, rights, and money?
 
Really pisses me off, too, 'cause I'm curious how they work, but if I ever satisfied my curiousity the feds would be able to charge me with a felony.
Click to expand...

Thought control. Think minority report, only nonfictional.
 
some how I doubt they can prosecute you for having plans. I've dug up a schematic for the MP-5 online, as well as the Sten Mk 2. There is absolutely no way to control who gets access to these schematics or who can make plans from them.

One would think that because the information is available to everyone simply possessing the plans and being a skilled machinist would not be a prosecuteable offence. Simply looking at schematics or possessing plans is evidence of personal interest in the topic of firearms design, not of intent to violate Federal law by illegaly manufacturing a fully-automatic/select-fire weapon.

Now if you had the plans lieing around, half the parts made, and the materials to finish the project on the other hand, they could probably prosecute you. Possessing some finished parts, the plans, and the tools to finish the job proves intent to make the gun
 
One would think that because the information is available to everyone simply possessing the plans and being a skilled machinist would not be a prosecuteable offence. Simply looking at schematics or possessing plans is evidence of personal interest in the topic of firearms design, not of intent to violate Federal law by illegaly manufacturing a fully-automatic/select-fire weapon.
Click to expand...

Dont' be too sure. A big ruccus was made about some computer code written by a 16 year old kid (with some help from others) that would decode DVD movies. They only went after people distrubuting the code though. They don't consider this information to be free speech at all I guess.

How are they related? Well, the general population really doesn't care if I can watch DVD movies with home built software. There' s no public support for outlawing such things... there is corporate support though. On the other hand the general population really hates the idea of machine guns.

"Four-eyed computer geek uses illegal software to watch a legally owned DVD on his legally owned computer" doesn't grab headlines.

"Machinist is found with plans and equipment to manufactuer a machine gun by the BATFE" does grab headlines.

Step in line citizen, and dont' read that schematic -- it's evil and you have no use for it.

It is interesting that all of our federal firearms regulations come from the "interstate commerce" clause in the constitution. A lot of our overbearing federal government has come about because of this. Remove the commerce from the situation and you should be able to skirt around the whole thing.
 
You need to write ATF and describe in detail what you propose to do and get a ruling in writing. Being in CA, you probably need to write CA DOJ also.

After playing the name game with ATF for several years, I'd bet money they would consider anything motor/electrical/computer operated either a machinegun or DD. From the description, it sounds like while calling this firearm "semi-automatic" it is still fired "automatically" by the software without any action on your part. To me, that sounds like a machinegun but with a very slow cyclic rate.
 
hey're deliberately vague about it, but the line seems to be that, if you have the gun, and the knowlege and means to convert it, you will be legally regarded as having the machine gun in your posession, even if you've never actually made the conversion.
Click to expand...

I think that you have to have taken some tangible step towards breaking the law. Just having knowledge cannot be a crime. If you buy equipment for the purpose of converting a gun to a machine gun, then that would be criminal because it includes the element of intent.
 
Oh, by the way, about home made machine guns in based on the 9th circuit Stewart ruling:

I have read that there are people out west who are filling out form 1's at this very moment to make their own FA weapons. The consensus seems to be that as long as the gun is not sold across state lines everything will be kosher. It'll be interesting to see where this leads.
 
BATF motto: "Impeding small arms research since 1968"

If the only thing keeping it from running full-auto is a (trivial) software change, then I suspect they'll take a very dim view of it.
 
Think of all the great ideas that these stupid laws must have stifled over the years. I bet we'd be a bit further along in the small arms department if you didn't have to fret and worry about becoming a felon for being curious or creative. Didn't John Moses Browning get his start creating firearms at home in his youth? He sure is lucky he didn't have the ATF to deal with. :banghead:

So what exactly does it take to be able to legally build full auto weapons? A special license? Dare I ask the costs of paper work to get the government's permission to build firearms?
 
Why aren't Glocks illegal since they can be easily converted to select fire
Click to expand...
In the case of Glocks, you cannot legally purchase one of these conversions and even having the plans, I wouldn't consider manufacturing one of these on my own as easy.

As for one of these...
nfalightninglink-01.jpg

ATF considers it to be a machinegun all by itself. So making one of these constitutes manufacturing a machinegun even if you don't have an AR-15.
 
Hey, that's a great idea! Somebody report New Jersey Institute of Technology to the ATF, they're using taxpayer dollars to develop something that could easily be hacked into a full auto. By design the only thing stopping the Metal Storm system from going FA is software, right?
 
paper receivers are something different. basically a paper reciever is a receiver manufacured after 1986 but registered before 1986. Civy manufacture of new full auto's was verbotten in 86 (I forget the month) so the idea is that some people registered receivers before the cut off date then built them later. It's kinda tricky cause the ATF in theory approves everything like that so you'd think they'd have made sure there was actually a receiver before they approved the paperwok, but then again that'd be asking the ATF to be compotent at something.


& Preacherman & a fw others are incorrect. Kinda.

The ATF does have some nonsense about something being easily convertible, but that's a regulation of theirs as opposed to a law (if I'm not mistaken). It carries the same weight as law until challenged in court but it's a bit easier to challenge succesfully.

Anyway I have heard the ATF tries to claim that a receiver that would require 8 hours of a machinists work to make it full auto is considered full auto, but as is typical this would become a de facto ban on all semi auto's.

More or less if you know what you're doing you can (in some instances) take a matchstick, insert it into the right place & have yourself a full auto. See the natural tendency of any semi is to fire repeatedly until it's out of ammo. It's not hard making a firearm full auto: the hard part is making it semi auto &/or making it full auto only while the trgiier is depressed.

So if the ATF ever got serious about this "easily convertible" BS, then we'd all have to turn in (yeah right) our Marlin model 60's & our Ruger 10/22's.

Now the electronic aspect is something kinda new but I don't think the ATF would have a solid case (then again I think the ATf has NEVER had a solid case). But if you want to be risk free (well, relatively) then call the ATF, your state Ag & your Fed AG. In fact Ashcroft would probably be the place to start asking since as AG he has the final say on ATF matters. You'll speak with an underling if you call & probably if you write, but that's where I'd start then I'd work my way down the food chain to make sure everyone's on the same page. & repeat the process at the state level. Actually start at the tstae level first, then go to the feds.
 
I don't know if it relates or not, but having a set of plans for a full auto and having the machine tools and materials(and skills) with which to convert/manufacture the same might be construed as having automatic weapons by the BATF could it not?
In the same way in which in some weapons seizures (for various reasons, ie, drug busts, illegal weapons) the defendents posessed "bomb making materials" in their garage ie, lengths of pipe (plumbing materials), gunpowder (reloaders), detonators (primers).
Is that a stretch?
 
So what happens if someone designs and manufactures, say, a sewing machine that happens to have a part exactly like the one Hkmp5sd posted of picture of? Are all the sewing machines then considered to be machine guns? And does everyone in the Little Old Ladies Quiting Society become an instant felon?
 
The key is "selective prosecution"; Make everyone a criminal, then you can simply prosecute whomever you don't like.

Want a joke? It's legal to build a gatling gun, so long as it's hand cranked. It's also legal to own a cordless drill. You add 2+2... :evil:
 
Code: 
//Commented out so I can put 'the switch' on...
/*
public void PullTrigger()
{
     if(myGun.Magazine.Ammo.Count > 0)
          MyGun.Fire();
}
*/

//New and improved firing mechanism...
public void PullTrigger()
{
     while (((myGun.Magazine.Ammo.Count > 0) && (myGun.Trigger.Pressed == true))
     {
          MyGun.Fire();
     }
}

Did I just break the law and perform a conversion??

:neener:
 
Diggler- almost certinly :)


I have no doubt I will have to contact the various DOJs and ATF offices directly, they will probally require inspection of the entire gun itself as well.

'easy' is a relative word. I know people who could write a secure web server faster than they could change out a Glock's slide-cover. (if they could even find said cover.)

Let alone just file down a sear on a 1911. (that takes no new parts at all, and only one tool.)

Conversely, I know people who could build entire benchrest quality firearms in a day, but can't even type, let alone code.





If the 8 hours clause were true, as you said,

Hell, if I was really strapped, I could probally BUILD a (smoothbore) gun in much less than 8 hours from nothing but steel billetts. I'm not even a machineist either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Full Auto SKS???
2 3
Replies
61
Views
7K
Supertac45
S
R
  • Locked
California Legal Firearms?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
crazed_ss
C
R
  • Locked
(PA) What if you find a full auto?
Replies
5
Views
782
Preacherman
P
B
  • Locked
Firearms Use By Offenders
Replies
6
Views
659
P95Carry
P
T
  • Locked
Gun building in regards to personal use and whats legal
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top