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.
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.
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.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.
Many AR15s are one extra hole (simple to drill with a jig) and a couple fire control group parts (can be legally bought) away from being full auto.
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.
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.
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.
Don't do this! You'd be skating on very thin ice, legally.
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.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.
I run M16 BCGs in everything.
http://www.northwestfirearms.com/th...rrier-group-in-a-semi-auto-ar-15-rifle.24975/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.
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 told and 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.This then brings up the so what? Unless you are making your own guns for your trust - there are very few people with the capability to build a MG - the average trust still won't have them. Won't they pretty much be post-86 sample equivalents? You could probably build an AK, Uzi, and Sten, but unless you have the plans for an auto sear, most people won't be making MP5s, M-16s, etc. The average NFA owner isn't a builder, from what I've seen. If the antis are smart, they'd let this one go undefended, the status quo wouldn't change by much, and it would allow them to look good to the uninformed pro-gun voter.
After reading the filing, it looks like they are trying to get 922.o thrown out completely, which should allow the transfer of post-86 machine guns.
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.It seems like it would be an easy step to buy an 80% lower with the right jig to make the extra holes in the receiver for the auto seer. I just can't imagine that finding the necessary specs for an auto seer is difficult. Or do it with a lightning link or some other means. What I'm saying is that once there is a legal way, that knowledge is shared and if since it's not a federal felony I see methods for creating your own MG much easier to find.
Again wrong. AR receivers require quite a bit of machining to take the autosear.Armymutt,
Many AR15s are one extra hole (simple to drill with a jig) and a couple fire control group parts (can be legally bought) away from being full auto.
Aaron
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.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.