PDA

View Full Version : shotgun news add


rallyhound
July 5, 2005, 07:43 PM
I noticed in the shotgun news that some company sells a "drop in ar15 auto sear"
what is that?
does it work?
It seems obviously illegal to me.
$275.00 bargain of the century.

locked'n'cocked
July 5, 2005, 07:50 PM
yea if it is what it says it is really illegal to use, however if you dont own the gun you may be able to own the part and not be breaking the law. if you own the gun you are breaking the law and if it is in the gun you are deffinatly breaking the law. i may be wrong on this but that is my understanding.

boofus
July 5, 2005, 08:57 PM
Those drop in sears are considered full blown machineguns by themselves. Avoid them like the plague unless you want to try your luck at the ATF Ruby Ridge shootin' gallery.

gunmoney
July 6, 2005, 02:57 PM
You would still also need all of the rest of the internal parts to make it FA. It is a scam and I am not sure of the intent of the add. It mentions the dates of manufacture I think and there are some legal loopholes involved with it. Still though, it is quite illegal for us civilians to obtain an auto sear in that manner.

MeekAndMild
July 6, 2005, 09:28 PM
Don't kid yourself. These cheap DIAS are only for licensed MG builders who are selling to police and other government agencies. You'd have to get a manufacturer's license to buy them.

The last time I checked a civilian-legal transferrable DIAS cost over $7500.

shaggy
July 6, 2005, 11:20 PM
Don't kid yourself. These cheap DIAS are only for licensed MG builders who are selling to police and other government agencies. You'd have to get a manufacturer's license to buy them.

The last time I checked a civilian-legal transferrable DIAS cost over $7500.


Price on a legal registered & transferable one is quite a bit higher these days IF you can find one to buy. Think $11k-12k and thats likely to jump up even higher once the LM-7 (.22LR beltfed upper) is released later this year. I sold one of mine more than a year ago for well over $10k. These days $7.5k will get a you a nice registered lightning link though.

I know that sounds like a huge amount of money, but its still chump change compared to the cost of the legal fees if you get caught with an unregistered one.

MeekAndMild
July 7, 2005, 05:22 PM
:eek:

Shaggy, that's unbelievable! I was going to say 'no way' so I went to a NFA website and they are selling m-16 married conversions for nearly $14,000!!!

Anyway I was right on one thing, you'll agree those unregistered ones are just for licensed manufacturers of exempt guns for government sales. Anybody else would be foolish to try to obtain one.

3 weelin geezer
July 8, 2005, 07:59 PM
It sure would be nice if they mentioned this fact in the ad. I don't think its foolish, just ignorant and you know what they say about ignorance in court. On the other hand, there's that other old saying "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is."

rambo1937
July 28, 2005, 08:16 PM
Take a look at the Initials in the ad. J.A.M

What does that say to you...........????

3 weelin geezer
July 31, 2005, 02:54 AM
Jail and more?

Lance5050
August 3, 2005, 04:35 PM
I've gotten a decent "full auto education" reading these threads - Thanks all.

I was wondering though, does anybody know what the "full-auto" laws are south of the border in Mexico? That would seem like an easy way to defeat the oppressive laws here in the states for folks in the southern states near the border who could make road trips for shooting purposes...if the laws are much more realistic there, that is.

locked'n'cocked
August 3, 2005, 05:37 PM
i believe it is more difficult to get a firearm there than it is here and thats not FA that ive heard about. im not even sure if it is possible to legally own a gun at all.

James K
August 3, 2005, 07:29 PM
A lot of misinformation there. Here is the scoop.

Up to a few years ago, the DIAS was just a part; it was legal to own. Except for a licensed Class 3 manufacturer or someone who did the paper work and paid the tax, it was NOT legal to install it in a rifle, or to own both a DIAS and the gun it would fit. But the DIAS itself was legal to own - note that.

Then BATFE issued a ruling making a DIAS in and of itself a machinegun. Any manufactured since that time had to be serial numbered, registered and treated as a machinegun just like an M2 Carbine parts kit.

But BATFE did NOT require registration of those DIAS's then in the public domain, and without serial numbers. Those are under the old rule, so they ARE legal to own. Some of those are still around, and people are selling them as "legal to own", which is true. What they don't say is that if you put the DIAS in a rifle, or own a rifle it will fit, you have an unregistered machinegun, and that IS NOT legal.

You cannot now (since 1986) install a DIAS and then register the gun, since machinegun registration is now closed to individuals.

One note of caution. In addition to being illegal if installed or if you own a gun it can be put on, many DIAS's were made quickly when word got out of the pending ruling. They are cast junk; made of cheap metal and not hardened, they last only a few rounds (a source says one lasted about 100 rounds) and then they are ruined and the money is down the tubes. And this is on top of the chance of being caught.

FWIW, manufacturers of machineguns for police/military use don't use a DIAS; those guns are made as machineguns and use the proper auto sear and the proper parts.

Jim

shaggy
August 3, 2005, 10:56 PM
But BATFE did NOT require registration of those DIAS's then in the public domain, and without serial numbers. Those are under the old rule, so they ARE legal to own. Some of those are still around, and people are selling them as "legal to own", which is true. What they don't say is that if you put the DIAS in a rifle, or own a rifle it will fit, you have an unregistered machinegun, and that IS NOT legal.

Jim, with all due respect thats not quite true either. The "old rule" allowing possession of pre-81 sears is of highly dubious validity. A few years ago in US v Cash, Judge Easterbrook correctly noted that BATF does not have the authority to grandfather certain machineguns and thus exempt them from the purview of the NFA based soeley upon the date of manufacture. IOW once BATF declared the DIAS to be a machinegun in and of itself they could not exempt ones made prior to the ruling from the registration and transfer requirements of the NFA. BATF has the authority to determine what part or collection of parts may constitute a machinegun but once that determination is made the NFA automatically applies to all such parts. Its either a machinegun or its not, and once its determined to be a machinegun the date of manufacture is irrelevant to the functional qualities of the part. Anyone thinking about buying one, even as just a curiousity not to be used in a firearm, would be well advised to stay away.