Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What if BATF Adds Semi Autos to the NFA?

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by SharpsDressedMan, Dec 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kell490

    kell490 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    40
    The commit that was made about full auto at the range I have never been asked once to produce my paperwork at Ben Avery's shooting range in Phoenix, AZ for 20 years of shooting there. One time I saw a guy shooting a MP5 full auto. I was talking to him about registration I could tell he had no idea what I was talking about. This leads back to the point that a federal ban on AW is going to be tough to enforce in Arizona where local law enforcement has no desire to deal with federal gun bans.
     
  2. Hokkmike

    Hokkmike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,380
    Location:
    Sullivan County PA
    Well, the OP is GREAT question. I keep going back and forth on "would I" or "Wouldn't I" comply. I really don't know. Many say it won't, can't happen. Others say it is likely. We are debating the hypothetical. At least this is true with the extent of knowledge that I have. I hope the really good pro-gun legal minds are on top of this.
     
  3. mokin

    mokin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,003
    Location:
    Western Colorado
    I like the way you explain that Sam. On the other hand, from the responses I've recieved from my representatives and things I've read in the news, I'm not real sure how firm of a grasp on reality some law-makers have.
     
  4. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    Now wait a sec; I keep hearing that the BATFE can't add semi auto's to the NFA because they weren't covered under the original legislation. What about the times the BATFE simply "decided" that DIAS's, Lightning Links, M16 parts and the like, were "machine guns". Keep in mind that these parts don't have to be found in conjunction with an Ar15. They are, by themselves, "machine guns". Heck, the BATFE once even decided that a 16" shoestring was a "machine gun".

    The reality is that they've got alot of wiggle room in this matter. Their website lists the definition of a machine gun; "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be READILY RESTORED to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger"

    Anyone one remember that shipment of airsoft rifles the BATFE seized because they could be "readily restored" to be machine guns?

    Is all this hyperbole? Maybe. I personally think that all this will blow over in a few months. But don't tell me the BATFE "can't" call semi auto's "machine guns" when they've done it plenty of times with non firearms. God forbid if another Sandy Hook happens in the near future we'll see first hand.
     
  5. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    So to expound, if the BATFE gets to decide what "readily restored" means, whats to stop them from classifying Ar15's under that definition?
     
  6. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    They do,
    except only when you have the REST of the FA parts
    if you have a FA trigger and a AR lower, you are in possession of a MG

    But if you only have one and not the other (except certain parts)
    just like you can buy a parts kit with the FA trigger, you just can't build the receiver to take it.
     
  7. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    33,822
    Location:
    Central PA
    Sambo82,

    Their own prior definitions and statements could easily be used to argue that point. Reclassifying tens of millions of guns at a stroke isn't the same sort of "inside baseball" detail as defining a DIAS as a machine gun. One affects a few people who are actually trying to skirt the law and don't have the pull to really fight the question, and would probably lose anyway because their device does indeed work the way the ATF says is against the law.

    The other affects millions of families across the country and causes them a direct harm, while explicitly contradicting decades of former rulings to the contrary. That's going to be far too much egregious harm caused to far too many citizens to slip in as and administrative change without taking it through the legislature and the courts.
     
  8. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,059
    Location:
    Virginia
    The time for ATF to rule that the AR-15 was "readily convertible" would have been around 1964, when Colt first came out with the civilian version of the M-16. In fact, ATF could easily have ruled that at that time. But there apparently was an "under the radar" discussion between Colt and ATF on what was acceptable, and Colt had the influence to make its views prevail.

    What's not generally remembered is that Colt had to temporarily pull the AR-15 off the market around 1970, when the ATF pointed out that merely removing the disconnector could cause uncontrolled automatic fire. That's when Colt went back to the drawing board and came up with the idea of the notched hammer and the unshrouded bolt carrier, so that the gun would jam if the disconnector was removed. With these changes, they were able to re-introduce the gun. Since then, there have been constant tweaks in the design (such as putting a hardened steel insert around the FCG) to address various ATF concerns.

    Anyway, a long-standing precedent like this is not easily going to be overturned.
     
  9. MasterSergeantA

    MasterSergeantA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    Not quite. I can run a FA hammer in my AR all day and, so long as nothing ever breaks and causes the gun to run away, no notice will be taken. This has been discussed before in the matter of the FA bolt carriers. Not a problem. Now someone 'might' wonder why the spare parts you have laying out on your bench includes the sear and sear pin...but that is still not technically a violation because there is no way to put them in your lower until you (stupidly) drill another hole. But they are better put away somewhere against a 'rainy day'.

    And if I were on a range and an ATF agent...or any other LE type...asked me to open my AR so he/she could see what trigger I had in it, I would smile and politely ask to see the warrant.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page