qustion about intent to manufacture a machine gun

[ganymede]

has anyone ever been tried and convicted of intent to manufacture a machine gun for owning a rifle and the machine gun part. If so what were the circumstances? how do they prove intent? And if your conicted for the "intent" to do something, isn't that by deffinition a thought crime?

 

[sfc_mark]

And if your conicted for the "intent" to do something, isn't that by deffinition a thought crime?

I believe the term is "constructive intent," the key being actually having at least some of the required parts. It's not really a thought crime any more if you are actually taking concrete steps to actualize the thought, as opposed to reading about conversions.

If someone is arrested during a drug buy after they turn over the money, but before they actually take possession of the drugs, is that a thought crime because they never actually possessed the drugs?

 

[TexasRifleman]

And if your conicted for the "intent" to do something, isn't that by deffinition a thought crime?

Not if you have more than the thought. In the case you describe you have the means to do it, immediately at hand. That's the idea anyway.

Now, the problem comes in with other things, say household cleaners and chemicals.

Most people have household chemicals that when combined could be an explosive, or some kind of poison gas. But are they ever charged with "constructive intent" to make a WMD? No, not really.

So then it becomes, can the items in question have a legitimate use as well as a criminal use?

If I have a hacksaw and a shotgun, I "constructively possess" a short barreled shotgun, but the hacksaw COULD be used for other things.

So, does a drop in auto sear for example have a legitimate use? Probably not, and it seems that's where the courts have drawn the line.

 

[HKrazy]

If you have the parts to build a machine gun or short barreled rifle or shotgun in your possession, you are considered in "constructive possession" of a NFA weapon and yes, people have been tried and convicted under this concept.

The only exception to this rule is based on the Thompson Center case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. In that case the man had a Thompson Center pistol that he also possessed a kit, sold by T/C, that had a shoulder stock and a barrel over 16". BATF argued that because he possessed barrels that were less than 16" and a shoulder stock, he was capable if immediately building a short barreled rifle and therefore, in "constructive possession" of a short barreled rifle. The Supreme Court did not agree with the BATF and said as long as you have a legitimate use for those parts and only use them legitimately, you are not breaking the law.

So, if the person sold the 16" barrel they would have to get rid of the shoulder stock because they no longer had a legitimate use for the stock and would be in 'constructive possession".

BATF claim this decision only applies to The Thompson Center Contender pistol in question in the case. However it has sent a strong president that has not been challenged by BATF and for the most part is considered the law of the land.

So, to answer you original question, there is no need for BATF to prove intent, If you poses the parts to build a machine gun, you are in "constructive possession" of a machine gun and in big trouble.

 

[kludge]

intent to manufacture a machine gun for owning a rifle and the machine gun part

Moot, IMO.

The "machine gun part" is a "machine gun" by definition. If you don't have paperwork for the "machine gun part" which is a "machine gun" regardless of whether you have the rest of the parts to make a functional rifle, you're in big trouble.

The NFA question for a SBR is different and has already been addressed.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The "machine gun part" is a "machine gun" by definition. If you don't have paperwork for the "machine gun part" which is a "machine gun" regardless of whether you have the rest of the parts to make a functional rifle, you're in big trouble.

That's not necessarily the case, but it's the safe way to approach this mess.

Specifically the pre-81 AR sears. ATF ruled that drop in sears made BEFORE 1981 were grandfathered and NOT considered machine guns in and of themselves.

So, you CAN legally own a pre-81 sear, but NOT if you also own a host rifle. Knowing the ATF they would consider it a crime even if you had a pre-81 sear and a rifle with an SP1 bolt carrier. Those bolt carriers will not trip the drop in sear, so it won't do anything, but I wouldn't trust ATF to know that or care.

Owning the sear itself is not a crime, nor is it possession of a machine gun. Crazy since it would be useless without a host rifle, but technically legal. Of course the burden of proof is on you to prove that it was made before 1981, that's gonna be REALLY hard to do.

A post-81 sear is a machine gun in and of itself, and illegal if no tax stamp.

So, a 45 cent piece of metal made in December of '80 is legal, the same piece made in January of '82 would be a felony.

Clear as mud, which is how the ATF seems to like it.

 

[HKrazy]

Clear as mud, which is how the ATF seems to like it.

I agree with you 100%

The "machine gun part" is a "machine gun" by definition. If you don't have paperwork for the "machine gun part" which is a "machine gun" regardless of whether you have the rest of the parts to make a functional rifle, you're in big trouble.

It's not quite that simple. You can own a full-auto trigger pack for a HK roller locked gun (HK-91,92,94 etc) which is a machine gun part and own the gun, but it's not illegal.

The BATF has some crazy rule about the difference between a semi-auto and a machine gun is a semi-auto must require 6 hours of work to convert it to full auto to be considered safely semi-auto and not a machine gun. If a gun is too easy to convert to full auto, then it is deemed a machine gun already. The Semi-auto Thompson Machine gun clone called the Apache Carbine, that was manufactured in the late 1970's, was deemed to be a machine gun because it was incredibly easy to get it to fire full auto.

Of course, under these same rules every AR-15 and clone is an illegal machine gun because you can make a lightning link in a lot less than 6 hours. Same goes for HK roller locked guns where, as mentioned, it is legal to own the full-auto trigger packs because they don't fit the semi-auto receivers, but any fool with half a brain could adapt one in under an hour. Or how about the trick where you can make a Garand or M1A fire full auto with a piece of string. That takes five minutes.

So, yes the rules are unclear, arbitrary, capricious and completely based on what ever mood the BATFE is in that day.

 

[Hold My Own]

The last I heard, if you owned the part and the semi auto rifle you'd be charged with possession of a machine gun but don't take what I'm saying for law.

Example: Say you own the sear for an AR-15 to make it fully automatic, AND you have a semi automatic AR-15, you'd be in big trouble. You can legally have either one or the other since I think there are legal pre 80-something sears. Maybe '81? But if you have BOTH the sear AND an AR-15 in your possession it's illegal. You have to choose either one or the other.

No matter what your excuse for having the sear is. You could say "Hey, this isn't a sear it's a cuff link!" and all you'll get is a "We don't care. You're in possession." That just equals big trouble.

 

[HKrazy]

No matter what your excuse for having the sear is. You could say "Hey, this isn't a sear it's a cuff link!" and all you'll get is a "We don't care. You're in possession." That just equals big trouble.

Yes, but if enforced to the fullest extent of the law, anyone who owns a Garand and a piece of string is in possession of an illegal machine gun.

There is no black or white. The rules vary from weapon to weapon just like with some rifles the upper is the receiver and some guns the lower is the receiver.

As I mentioned, owning a HK full-auto trigger pack is legal and there are many internet sites that sell them.

But if the BATF comes busting into your workshop and you are standing over said trigger pack with a file, hacksaw, a drill and a copy of one of those manuals on how to make a HK full-auto. You are busted.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Or how about the trick where you can make a Garand or M1A fire full auto with a piece of string. That takes five minutes.

There's a letter somewhere from ATF tech branch basically saying that every 14 inch shoestring in American is an illegal unregistered machine gun.

They retracted the letter a few months later once they realized what they had done.

And that's the core of the problem, we have an agency making up the law as it goes. This same agency is the one courts and juries rely on for technical interpretations in a trial. This same agency was spanked by the Supreme Court over the Thompson rifle/pistol thing and they flat out said that the Supreme Court ruling only applied to that one single firearm, not the concept in general.

That's bad for citizens any way you slice it.

ETA: Found the letter.... pretty funny. Then the second one "upon further review we find that a shoestring is not a machine gun"....

No s**t Sherlock..... took 3 years LOL

 

[ganymede]

wow, i would think that shoestring thing is a joke, but apperantly not. that's pretty insane. one thing i dont understand though. someone said you cant have a rifle that can be converted to full auto in less than 6 hours or so. I could be very wrong about this, but i looked at the way my AK-47 trigger works and it seems to me it could be converted to full auto, simple by filing down or cutting off the second little catch thing on it. I'm not sure how long that would take but it cant be 6 hours. this is something i thought of on my own, i could be way off in left field about it.

 

[divemedic]

Nearly any semi-auto can be converted to full auto simply by removing the disconnector. Not safe, but it will allow the hammer to ride the bolt and meet the technical definition of a machine gun.

Ive heard claims that even lever actions can be converted, but I would not even know how to attempt that

 

[Art Eatman]

Enough thread drift...