lilguy
Member
So. You have a semi 1919A4. This suit has a positive result. You then, form a trust, fill out the forms, wait for the stamp and rework to full auto. Correct?
I know, not in Illinois.
I know, not in Illinois.
NFA Lawsuit filed
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
It depends on how the decision goes.
One positive result would be to reverse the "previously allowed then dis-allowed" form for the petitioner, and that's IT. If that were to be the outcome, he gets a machinegun, but no one else would be able to. Still a positive outcome (for him). But not for the rest of us.
On the (not very likely) extreme end of the other spectrum the federal judge rules 922(o) is unconstitutional and repeals it. That'd be valid ONLY for the district it is in (northern Dallas, TX), unless it went through appeals and was upheld, then it'd be valid for that Federal circuit (District 5), which would encompass Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. Then, those folks could build full auto machineguns under a noncorporate trust, but the other 47 states couldn't. That'd be the limit of THAT decision, unless it went to the Supreme Court and was upheld.
So, short term even if we have the most favorable outcome, it affects very few people.
One positive result would be to reverse the "previously allowed then dis-allowed" form for the petitioner, and that's IT. If that were to be the outcome, he gets a machinegun, but no one else would be able to. Still a positive outcome (for him). But not for the rest of us.
On the (not very likely) extreme end of the other spectrum the federal judge rules 922(o) is unconstitutional and repeals it. That'd be valid ONLY for the district it is in (northern Dallas, TX), unless it went through appeals and was upheld, then it'd be valid for that Federal circuit (District 5), which would encompass Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. Then, those folks could build full auto machineguns under a noncorporate trust, but the other 47 states couldn't. That'd be the limit of THAT decision, unless it went to the Supreme Court and was upheld.
So, short term even if we have the most favorable outcome, it affects very few people.
AlexanderA
Member
Trent wrote:
An inconsistent result like that would cause Congress to immediately revisit the NFA, and you can bet that the results would be more restrictive, not less restrictive.
An inconsistent result like that would cause Congress to immediately revisit the NFA, and you can bet that the results would be more restrictive, not less restrictive.
Not so sure about that.
We've still got a standing, non-appealed decision in the 7th Federal circuit that says manufacturing machineguns is legal*. It's only binding for IL, WI, and IN, though, and it doesn't protect you from possession charges.
* The interpretation of this only goes so far, as it protects people in those three states from being charged with tax evasion for not paying the taxes, but you can still get nailed with other Federal and state charges for possession of a machine-gun.
If there were people forming non-revocable non-corporate trusts in those states and filing a bunch of form 1's, well, it's surely raise some eyebrows and may prompt the legislature to change the law.
However, if it's found to be a constitutional violation that the strict prohibition on manufacture and possession of machine-guns is a violation of the 2nd amendment, they'd have to do something else; like re-open the NFA but raise the tax to some absurd amount like $50,000. (Back when it was passed, the amount WAS truly absurd, it just never got adjusted for inflation...)
We've still got a standing, non-appealed decision in the 7th Federal circuit that says manufacturing machineguns is legal*. It's only binding for IL, WI, and IN, though, and it doesn't protect you from possession charges.
* The interpretation of this only goes so far, as it protects people in those three states from being charged with tax evasion for not paying the taxes, but you can still get nailed with other Federal and state charges for possession of a machine-gun.
If there were people forming non-revocable non-corporate trusts in those states and filing a bunch of form 1's, well, it's surely raise some eyebrows and may prompt the legislature to change the law.
However, if it's found to be a constitutional violation that the strict prohibition on manufacture and possession of machine-guns is a violation of the 2nd amendment, they'd have to do something else; like re-open the NFA but raise the tax to some absurd amount like $50,000. (Back when it was passed, the amount WAS truly absurd, it just never got adjusted for inflation...)
Carl N. Brown
Member
The question should have been asked:
Were the legally registered machine guns a public problem? (Hint: no, they were not.)
If not, the closure of the NFA registry to new machineguns served no useful purpose.
I am not sure what level of scrutiny that is called in legalese, but the closure of the registry could be challenged on those grounds alone.
ADDED: Adjusted for inflation, the 1934 $200 NFA fee (equal to the 1934 MSRP of the Thompson M1921AC or similar M1928) represents $3,526 in current buying power.
For that matter, the 1934 $255 Social Security Death Benefit would be the equivalent of $4,495 today.
If the feds start adjusting for inflation fees inshrined in laws, we ought to demand adjusting benefits promised too. That would probably end the discussion.
Were the legally registered machine guns a public problem? (Hint: no, they were not.)
If not, the closure of the NFA registry to new machineguns served no useful purpose.
I am not sure what level of scrutiny that is called in legalese, but the closure of the registry could be challenged on those grounds alone.
ADDED: Adjusted for inflation, the 1934 $200 NFA fee (equal to the 1934 MSRP of the Thompson M1921AC or similar M1928) represents $3,526 in current buying power.
For that matter, the 1934 $255 Social Security Death Benefit would be the equivalent of $4,495 today.
If the feds start adjusting for inflation fees inshrined in laws, we ought to demand adjusting benefits promised too. That would probably end the discussion.
Last edited:
It looks like he's trying to use miller as well to get the NFA itself ruled unconcstitutional if he succeeded at that then they'd have to get creative about it and try regulating it instead of just taxing it. Something like the onerous approval requirements california has.
Last edited:
MachIVshooter
Member
I know this thread is not about the technical aspects of MGs, but I feel this should be addressed:
It's more than just a hole. The fire control pocket on the M-16 has more metal milled away than the AR-15.
But yes, the semi automatic version of the AR and many other firearms that were originally designed as full auto are not difficult to alter to accept FA parts. And yes, the parts themselves are lawful to own. You can even assemble a legal semi-auto AR with all M16 parts, except for the auto sear.
But a receiver that is milled/drilled to accept FA specific parts is legally a machine gun, whether you have the rest of the parts or not. An AK or AR receiver with the 3rd hole is contraband, period.
As an aside, while it's kinda cool to have a selector that will go the full 180* on an AR, remember that without the auto sear, you'll just have a single shot if you use it in that position. The third position disables the disconnector, and the hammer will follow the bolt carrier down, resulting in a dead trigger with a live round in the chamber.
It's more than just a hole. The fire control pocket on the M-16 has more metal milled away than the AR-15.
But yes, the semi automatic version of the AR and many other firearms that were originally designed as full auto are not difficult to alter to accept FA parts. And yes, the parts themselves are lawful to own. You can even assemble a legal semi-auto AR with all M16 parts, except for the auto sear.
But a receiver that is milled/drilled to accept FA specific parts is legally a machine gun, whether you have the rest of the parts or not. An AK or AR receiver with the 3rd hole is contraband, period.
As an aside, while it's kinda cool to have a selector that will go the full 180* on an AR, remember that without the auto sear, you'll just have a single shot if you use it in that position. The third position disables the disconnector, and the hammer will follow the bolt carrier down, resulting in a dead trigger with a live round in the chamber.
AlexanderA
Member
Carl N. Brown wrote:
The Hughes Amendment served a purpose, all right: it was intended as a "poison pill" to kill FOPA (otherwise known as McClure-Volkmer). The NRA did the unexpected, took the poison, and asked Reagan to sign the bill.
I was an FFL/SOT at the time, and I was dumbfounded by this. FOPA would have been a marginal improvement, but we had learned to live with the quirks of the system the way it was (contiguous-state long gun transfers, etc.). The Hughes Amendment closing of the registry, however, was the beginning of the end of the Title II market as we knew it. Not long after that, I decided to give up my licenses.
The NFA tax basically doubled the price of a Thompson in 1934. This was not prohibitory. The Thompson was an expensive gun already, and the tax made it more expensive. The few well-to-do individuals (other than police agencies, which were exempt from the tax anyway) that were buying Thompsons before, could still buy Thompsons after the tax. The problem with the Thompson was that it was just too expensive to begin with.
If the NFA tax were to be indexed for inflation using 1934 as a baseline, but if at the same time Hughes was repealed and the registry was opened, because of market forces MG's would still be far more affordable than they are today. But let's keep in mind that tax revenues are not what the antigunners are concerned about.
The Hughes Amendment served a purpose, all right: it was intended as a "poison pill" to kill FOPA (otherwise known as McClure-Volkmer). The NRA did the unexpected, took the poison, and asked Reagan to sign the bill.
I was an FFL/SOT at the time, and I was dumbfounded by this. FOPA would have been a marginal improvement, but we had learned to live with the quirks of the system the way it was (contiguous-state long gun transfers, etc.). The Hughes Amendment closing of the registry, however, was the beginning of the end of the Title II market as we knew it. Not long after that, I decided to give up my licenses.
The NFA tax basically doubled the price of a Thompson in 1934. This was not prohibitory. The Thompson was an expensive gun already, and the tax made it more expensive. The few well-to-do individuals (other than police agencies, which were exempt from the tax anyway) that were buying Thompsons before, could still buy Thompsons after the tax. The problem with the Thompson was that it was just too expensive to begin with.
If the NFA tax were to be indexed for inflation using 1934 as a baseline, but if at the same time Hughes was repealed and the registry was opened, because of market forces MG's would still be far more affordable than they are today. But let's keep in mind that tax revenues are not what the antigunners are concerned about.
AlexanderA
Member
MachIVshooter wrote:
Don't do this! You'd be skating on very thin ice, legally. Hammer follow-down could easily set off a round (albeit in an unpredictable, uncontrolled manner), and two shots with one pull of the trigger legally satisfies the definition of a machine gun.
The same thing can be done merely by simply removing the disconnector. This was thought to be such a big problem, back in the early days of the AR-15 (in the early 1970's) that Colt, at the behest of the ATF, actually took the AR-15 off the market until it could complete a redesign. When the gun returned to the market, it had a notched hammer and beveled bolt carrier, so that if you removed the disconnector, instead of a hammer follow-down, you'd have a hopeless jam. (More recent iterations of the gun did away with the notched hammer and beveled bolt carrier.)
Don't do this! You'd be skating on very thin ice, legally. Hammer follow-down could easily set off a round (albeit in an unpredictable, uncontrolled manner), and two shots with one pull of the trigger legally satisfies the definition of a machine gun.
The same thing can be done merely by simply removing the disconnector. This was thought to be such a big problem, back in the early days of the AR-15 (in the early 1970's) that Colt, at the behest of the ATF, actually took the AR-15 off the market until it could complete a redesign. When the gun returned to the market, it had a notched hammer and beveled bolt carrier, so that if you removed the disconnector, instead of a hammer follow-down, you'd have a hopeless jam. (More recent iterations of the gun did away with the notched hammer and beveled bolt carrier.)
Aaron Baker
Member
My apologies. That was MY bad information. Apparently there were some commercial AR15 lowers that were milled the same as M16 lowers, but those are fairly rare. Most AR15 lowers are either high or low shelf, one of which apparently allows the use of a RDIAS, but not an M16 sear.
Thanks for the clarification.
Aaron
I remember reading of a conviction of a guy who had M16 parts in his gun, even though it was still semi-auto. Don't have a reference off the top of my head, but they nailed him with constructive possession.
Might do some digging Thurs for a link (tomorrow is too hectic at work and I'm too tired tonight).
But it's NOT a good idea to keep M16 parts in your AR-15. First, there's no point, and second, it's just a bad idea, legally.
Field Tester
Member
I believe it was a case in Washington. I just read about it the other day. It lead to WA not allowing the BCG anymore. Those details should help you witg your search. That or someone will know the case I'm talking about and chime in.
pjeski
Member
Trent, if you find it post it. I though the only time that has happened was a case where the gun was slam firing on hammer follow.
I run M16 BCGs in everything.
I run M16 BCGs in everything.
AlexanderA
Member
M16 BCG's are OK for use in semiautomatic guns. Colt received an official ruling from ATF that they could use them in new AR-15's.
Field Tester
Member
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/th...rrier-group-in-a-semi-auto-ar-15-rifle.24975/
This is true Federally, however there is still some debate about WA state. I can't seem to find anything that says 100% either way. It seems many websites will not ship them to WA as a CYA factor just in case.
You don't understand legislative process. Rules are not in the Constitution and change constantly. If the bill as a whole passed both the House and the Senate and was signed by the President, it is law. How the bill was written and amended has absolutely no bearing. There are a ridiculous number of dirty deals in a big percentage of bills. A voice vote on an amendment means zero. What matters is if the final bill passed in it's entirety by an official vote.This is a Federal Suit to open the can of worms that was created when the registery was closed.
I don't know that it questions the actual legitimacy of the voice vote, that would be sufficient to turn over IMHO by any clear thinking judge (who would like to take a well deserved stab at Congress.)
The BATF just does what it's toldand it's going to be interesting who would be directed to change things.
I think the real problem is that the trust as an entity may legally be able to manufacture and acquire a machine gun, but you as an individual cannot possess the machine gun. Felony. 10 year sentence. Federal sentences normally have no provisions for parole.
You need to do more than that. AR internal dimensions are narrower than M16 dimensions. You need to widen it out and machine clearance at the rear for the autosear.
Again wrong. AR receivers require quite a bit of machining to take the autosear.
No because there are only a little over 182,000 transferables and only about half of those are in private hands in a nation of over 300 million. They have always been expensive to buy and feed relative to salaries. Except for a brief period in the late 70s and early 80s, it has always been a rich man's game.
$200 was still alot of money in 1980, equivalent of $575 today.
Last edited:
TRX
Member
I have a machine gun. It's worth more than all of my automobiles put together.
If the registry opens again, its value would drop to a fraction of what it is now; basically, its true value without the "no more to be had" tacked on. So sad.
I'd laugh madly while filling out a stack of Form 1s to convert my safe full of crippled milsurps back to their original configurations.
If the registry opens again, its value would drop to a fraction of what it is now; basically, its true value without the "no more to be had" tacked on. So sad.
I'd laugh madly while filling out a stack of Form 1s to convert my safe full of crippled milsurps back to their original configurations.
- Status
