PDA

View Full Version : Law Enforcement M14, Legal?


Long Tom
April 9, 2008, 05:23 PM
Someone I know, knows a police officer. He has a M14 that he purchased
from his then police dept. as a semi-auto rifle in the seventys.
I assume it's considered a machine gun.
My question is, can the rifle be sold to a class 3 dealer or will it have to be destroyed.
He has all the papers he got when he bought it.
I'm told the gun is near mint.

Thanks in advance.
LT.

VUPDblue
April 9, 2008, 06:17 PM
It may very well be a semi-auto. Lots of dept's wanted centerfire rifles, but not necessarily full auto rifles. If it is actually a machinegun, chances are good that he transferred it out of his department legally. You should inquire what kind of form it is on, whether it is a form 5 or a form 4.

copenhagen
April 9, 2008, 06:21 PM
It hurts so much to hear that word 'DESTROY.' :(

wjkuleck
April 9, 2008, 06:54 PM
Someone I know, knows a police officer. He has a M14 that he purchased from his then police dept. as a semi-auto rifle in the seventys.
I assume it's considered a machine gun.

My question is, can the rifle be sold to a class 3 dealer or will it have to be destroyed. He has all the papers he got when he bought it. I'm told the gun is near mint.

Thanks in advance.
LT.

If this rifle was not registered as a machine gun prior to 1986, it is contraband. The BATFE considers any and all M14s, whether M14, M14M, or M14NM, as "readily restorable" and thus remain machine guns.

There is only one exception: TRW M14 NM A/N 143711; see U.S. v. One U.S. (TRW) 7.62mm M-14 National Match Rifle, Serial No. 143711, 1980 WL 95647 (S.D.Ohio, May 20, 1980) (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cases2.html)

http://www.fulton-armory.com/TRW-03-1000.jpg

"In this case the trial court turns down an ATF attempt to forfeit a TRW M-14 rifle, built by TRW as a National Match rifle. The court decides that ATF failed to prove the gun was a machine gun, as ATF argued - the gun was not registered as anything. ATF claimed the gun was readily restorable to a machine gun, and tried to prove that by welding the selector lockout to the lug on a regular M-14, then restoring that gun to take a selector. However, the court found that they did not weld the lockout in the manner that was done on the NM guns, nor did they refute the evidence that the NM guns never were machine guns, but were made as semi-autos at TRW."

You indicate that he "purchased" the rifle as a "semiauto." The consequences of this vary somewhat. For example, if the M14 came from the DoD, the DoD is going to want its property back. Unless things were very different back then, the "sale" of an M14 or an M16 to a LEO agency entails continued accounting for the weapon, which remains subject to recall. In the last year or two the DoD had all the M14s "loaned" to State Rifle Associations recalled.

If the rifle's source was not the DoD (as is the case with 143711 above) but the manufacturer, it may have been a non-tax transfer to a government agency (the police department). While the rifle would not be subject to DoD audit and/or recall, a transfer to a private individual without NFA registration would have been unlawful. A PD of my acquaintance has a mint Colt Thompson M1921; they would love to sell it to the collector market to use the funds for other purposes, but they cannot do so.

Now, I'm not an NFA owner or dealer, so I don't know if a rifle in the latter case can be transferred to a SOT as a post-'86 sample, but if so, that would keep it out of the clutches of the Federal authorities.

Were I he, I would keep a very low profile :eek:.

Regards,

Walt

David Hineline
April 9, 2008, 07:12 PM
Have your brother's uncle's cousin's friend send me an email and I will either by email or phone call walk him through the legality of his rifle configuration and what his options are.

I am not interested in talking to second or third parties, have the owner of the gun contact me.

goste
April 9, 2008, 07:24 PM
Hello all, I sorta had the same question...I'm a patrol officer, in a small town in T.X. My Dept has 3 m14 rifles, 2 trw,1 H.R. I found them in a back locker, some years ago. I don't know where they came from..Am I correct in assuming a Dept, would have to register them prior to 1986, for them to be legal? My Police chief at the time, knew nothing about them..

I would dearly love to own them, as The Dept. would let me have them for next to nothing,(I asked) but I just don't see how. They just sit, and I'm the only one who has fired them in years.. The other Officers see them as "mine". I wish...................seems a shame......


Later....Caspar

rkba_net
April 10, 2008, 02:54 AM
Your dept can register then at any time on an ATF Form 10... they will ONLY be transferable to other PD's and Gov't agencies... not even to Class III dealers...

Socrates
April 10, 2008, 04:39 AM
Laws written by idiots can be reversed by similar folks....

copenhagen
April 10, 2008, 08:50 AM
I have to ask myself, does it really make since that we are even discussing this? I mean obviously the law is unconstitutional, a violation of liberty, and the law is actually illegal. What the ATF does is immoral, and unethical. I'm not advising anyone to get in trouble. I myself try to avoid that. But seriously, we are talking about M-14's for Christ's sake. Even if they are fully automatic, what's the issue? You aren't killing anybody are you? Why do you even want to make it public that you own it? It isn't like somebody is going to approach you on a range and ask you for your papers.

Long Tom
April 10, 2008, 11:42 AM
If the post is read carefully. You will see I DO NOT OWN this, someone else does
The rifle was purchased like I said.
The rifle was offered for sale with the paperwork.
I advised that he should contact a dealer. Was I wrong?
I would love nothing better than to own such a nice item, but.
It's not like any M1A I ever saw. I think it would attract a Lot of attention
from my fellow shooters, much less the range master.

My question was is it possible to sell such a rifle to a class3 dealer,
and then the dealer be able to sell it as a legal machine gun.

He bought the item several years ago, before 1985.
Several others did the same thing. Are they gold or junk.
LT

VUPDblue
April 10, 2008, 12:50 PM
My question was is it possible to sell such a rifle to a class3 dealer,
and then the dealer be able to sell it as a legal machine gun.

No. If it wasn't registered as a transferable MG prior to 1986 then it can never be transfered to any non-dealer.

Long Tom
April 10, 2008, 03:24 PM
Thank You.
I guess it's not worth more than it's parts?


LT.

James K
April 10, 2008, 04:15 PM
AFAIK, NO M14 rifles were sold to police departments or to individual officers. Some were loaned to departments but were still considered U.S. property and could not be sold to anyone by the department, since the department didn't own them. (I am talking here about a GI M14, not a civilian semi-auto clone. An M14 is legally a machinegun, whether it fires full auto or not.)

If the department did somehow own the rifle, and the rifle was registered prior to 1986 and is transferrable, it could only sell the gun on a Form 4 just like any other owner of a registered NFA firearm. So the officer should have a copy of the approved Form 4 transferring the gun to him. If he does not, it is possible that he is not the legal owner, but that is not your problem. Unless he can show a lawful transfer to him [Form 4, not just a bill of sale], your action should be to run, do not walk, away from any deal. If he tries to sell the gun to a dealer, and does not legally own it, the dealer should call BATFE; he would suspect a set-up and would want to protect himself.

If he is the legal owner, he can sell directly to a buyer within his state, state law permitting. He does not have to go through a dealer.

Just as a note, more than one police department misunderstood the deal with those guns, and were or are under the impression that they belong to the department and can be sold. Some even thought that they could sell or even give auto weapons to individual police, and some got them as retirement gifts, no papers. BATFE has had to straighten out quite a few PDs and individual officers on the law.

Jim

VUPDblue
April 11, 2008, 07:07 AM
I guess in my original post, I was trying to get across the fact that a lot of people/departments get the nomenclature wrong. I was thinking that it could possibly be an M1A, not necessarily an M14

HKuser
April 11, 2008, 01:08 PM
Might be an M1A. Also, didn't TRW make some semi M-14s as VIP gifts?

armoredman
April 11, 2008, 01:13 PM
I was under the impression that some M-14s were made as semi auto only...as in every one in my ships armory, with the exception of two, were built as semi-auto only, no full auto ability. Does ATFE consider these rifles, constructed as semi-auto only, without the provision to convert, as full auto machineguns?

wjkuleck
April 11, 2008, 03:26 PM
I was under the impression that some M-14s were made as semi auto only...as in every one in my ships armory, with the exception of two, were built as semi-auto only, no full auto ability. Does ATFE consider these rifles, constructed as semi-auto only, without the provision to convert, as full auto machineguns?

Might be an M1A. Also, didn't TRW make some semi M-14s as VIP gifts?

M14s were issued with the selector lock pinned to the selector shaft in lieu of the selector, rendering them operationally semiauto only. However, the lock can be easily removed, one roll pin, and replaced by the selector. Thus, even though your M14 appears to be semiauto only, it lacks only the selector to be full auto. The BATFE considers all M14s to be machine guns.

M14NM rifles were built by SA (the real one, not the commercial company in IL that appropriated the name) and TRW. TRW did give some of its contract overrun M14NM rifles to employees, vendors and customers. These rifles were manufactured with the selector lock welded to the selector shaft, with other weldments rendering the rifles semiauto only. They never were machine guns. However, the BATFE position was, has been, and remains that these M14NMs are also machine guns.

There is only one exception: TRW M14 NM S/N 143711; see U.S. v. One U.S. (TRW) 7.62mm M-14 National Match Rifle, Serial No. 143711, 1980 WL 95647 (S.D.Ohio, May 20, 1980) (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cases2.html)

http://www.fulton-armory.com/TRW-03-1000.jpg

"In this case the trial court turns down an ATF attempt to forfeit a TRW M-14 rifle, built by TRW as a National Match rifle. The court decides that ATF failed to prove the gun was a machine gun, as ATF argued - the gun was not registered as anything. ATF claimed the gun was readily restorable to a machine gun, and tried to prove that by welding the selector lockout to the lug on a regular M-14, then restoring that gun to take a selector. However, the court found that they did not weld the lockout in the manner that was done on the NM guns, nor did they refute the evidence that the NM guns never were machine guns, but were made as semi-autos at TRW."

This decision is binding only on this particular rifle, and the precedent, if one can be argued, applies only to the Southern District of Ohio. The trial judge seems to have been persuaded by TRW engineers' testimony that the modifications to the receiver that rendered the rifles semiauto only were done prior to heat treat, that is, prior to the point that the receiver could be considered a firearm. Further, she was not moved by the ATF's clumsy attempt to show how an M14 could be welded and unwelded to go from select fire to semi to select fire again. The judge noted that since the rifle had never been a machine gun, the "readily restorable" criterion did not apply, because you cannot "restore" something to a state in which that something never was.

The Army, prior to GCA '68, considered a modification to existing M14s, welding the selector lock, with the designation "M14M." However, this strategem was rendered ineffective by the passage of GCA '68 and the program terminated.

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Regards,

Walt

HKuser
April 11, 2008, 10:58 PM
Back in the early '90's the NRA had a proposed bill to reclassify to amend the law to exempt M-14s that had been converted permanently to semi by Anniston Arsenal from the NFA. It never took off and it gave Clinton the motivation to start crunching them all. I wish it had come to pass.

patrol
April 11, 2008, 11:09 PM
The M14 is not a machinegun nor was it ever to include the full auto models. It is a "Battle Rifle". The full auto M16 A1 and the M16A2 with the three round burst is not a machine gun either, it too is a "rifle". I was a marine and my job was "machinegunner'. A M2 50cal and an M60 E2 and E3 are machineguns.

p99guy
April 12, 2008, 12:27 AM
Darndest thing...Appearently you dont have to agree with the law for it to still be applicable, Patrol. The Military at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Rifle, M14, wouldnt have ever heard the civy coined term "battle rifle" at that time, nor was it ever nomenclature for the weapon. The M14 in its basic form was select fire, and it was up to the unit using them as to whether a selector switch or selector lock was installed on each rifle. In the Army each fire team had a designated automatic Rifleman(served the same purpose as a WW2 BAR'man) and his rifle would be equipped with the full auto selector,M2 bipod, The E2 buttstock, and a slip on compensator to better control the 750rpm cyclic rate.
(Federal and State law does define the G.I. M14 as a "machinegun". Just as a Thompson M1 SMG while not resembling a belt fed M60 or M240 either...is a machinegun by law as well.
Just the naked stripped M16A2 lower receiver with the hole for the auto sear drilled into it(and no form 4/tax stamp with your name on it) will send you to a grand tour of our fine countries legal system.and cost you thousands of dollars in legal expenses. You really do need to read up on what they believe, as it will be what will take your freedom away.(regardless of what you think)

James K
April 12, 2008, 01:48 PM
In 1963, the Army initiated a program to weld selected M14 rifles to a permanent semi-auto configuration and sell them through the DCM to civilian high power competitors. They even produced an Army Regulation* as to how this was to be done once the program was approved.

There was no problem with (then) ATTD. The United States was the legal manufacturer and owner of the rifle, and the manufacturer would simply have been issuing a new model, to be designated the M14M. The second "M" would be marked on the receiver once the conversion had been done. Some rifles were converted, but NONE were ever sold.

Well, on November 22, 1963, an event occurred that had many consequences. One was that the Secretary of the Army cancelled the M14M program, ordered that NO M14Ms were to be sold, and that while the sale of M1903A4 rifles could continue, the scopes were to be taken off and broken up with the lenses used for "educational purposes." The whole thing was CYA politics by the Army and the Johnson administration. (For those who aren't old enough to remember, there was legislation introduced to ban all hunting, ban all guns, ban all rifles, ban all scope sights, round up NRA members and hunters to be put in "re-education" camps, etc. It was sheer insanity and there was no way the Army was going to sell "machineguns" and scope sighted rifles in that political atmosphere.)

M14Ms and M14NMs were in fact later loaned to state associations for use by their teams, but none were ever sold; they remained the property of the U.S., the same as those M14s loaned to police departments.

Just as a tickler, there is NO legal reason the M14M program could not be revived today. It is not likely it will be. The 1986 ban on machinegun registration would not apply, as the M14M would not be a machinegun.

*That AR crops up every once in a while, and some folks say it requires the Army to release M14s for sale; it does no such thing and an AR does NOT over-ride Army policy or federal law.

Jim

Long Tom
April 12, 2008, 04:04 PM
The rifle was a US Rifle M14. Apparently a legal entity sold such an item to a private individual, and as one member wrote other's also have.
What can be done with such a rifle, with a bill of sale from a Police Dept.
stating it was a semi-auto not full auto weapon?

I think my next advice may be to get his chop saw out of the garage
and fired up.

LT.

James K
April 12, 2008, 09:01 PM
Believe it that a bill of sale, even from a police department, does NOT trump federal law, no matter what it says.

Some time back, a fellow got himself appointed police chief in a small town and promptly ordered a couple of dozen MGs and SMGs which he sold to his friends. BATFE wondered exactly how much crime there was in a town of less than 1500 people and investigated. The ex-chief may still be in jail; the guns were seized and presumably are now in the hands of legitimate LEO's.

Just one more note on the subject of police M14s. A while back, someone advertised an ex-police M14 for sale, supposedly converted to semi-auto by the Army and legal to sell. Just for fun, I called him and he assured me that he was the owner of a gun store, that the gun was legal and could be shipped to any FFL dealer. But that was the second call. On the first call, I forgot about the time zone difference, and called an hour too early. The voice mail kicked in to tell me that "AGENT Smith is not at his desk." AGENT?

A sucker would have bought the gun, then a few weeks or months later, the feds would have shown up with "information received" that there was an illegal machinegun on the premises. BATFE gets credit for arresting a "potential terrorist", the local cops bask in the reflected glory, the press gets a story involving machineguns, and everyone is happy. Oh, except for the sucker, who if he is lucky may get probation and a big fine instead of jail time.

Jim

David Hineline
April 13, 2008, 05:28 AM
Plenty of opinions, most of them understand part but not all the advice/rumors they are putting forth, some suggest a chop saw, which might or might not be destroying a gun worth $15,000 because they are so afraid to find out the legal staus of the gun.

buymore
April 24, 2008, 09:45 PM
Is there the sight possibility that this is an Armscorp M14S (which would be semi-auto) I mean the Springfield's are M1A's, the Norinco's and Polytechs are stamped M14S along with the Armscorp versions. I wasn't sure if I caught any exact info on that? I know it said in the 70s', not sure when the others started making theirs to ship into the US? Everyone could be bantering over nothing if it turns out this is actual a civilian semi auto version to start with!

HKuser
April 25, 2008, 08:10 AM
If it was gotten in the 70's, then No, there is no chance of that being the case. Those were all late '80 at the earliest.

wjkuleck
April 25, 2008, 08:18 AM
I do have a "Devine, TX" M1A from circa 1972, but those are clearly marked, "M1A." Maunz produced rifles sometime in the late '70's, but I don't recall how they were marked.

However, if a PD, it's 99 44/100% certain to be a live USGI M14.

Regards,

Walt

MisterPX
April 25, 2008, 08:33 PM
Put your old cop buddy in contact with David. He's been in the NFA game for a while now, and I'm confident he'll figure out teh deal with the M14.

Long Tom
April 26, 2008, 01:42 AM
Thanks for all the input from everyone. I will pass along all the info.

dakid2
April 26, 2008, 11:56 PM
You could also try if your buddy buddy with the sheriff to deputize you and allow you to purchase the weapon. Out here that isn't that far fetched and still is considered legal unless you lose the "badge". I found this out from a guy who didn't want to pay like 15K plus for an MP5 and found out if he did it that way it would have been just something like 2K. Can't verify, but just like certain body armor, if you can get an leo or mil to sign off on it, you can buy it.

VUPDblue
April 27, 2008, 08:35 AM
You could also try if your buddy buddy with the sheriff to deputize you and allow you to purchase the weapon. Out here that isn't that far fetched and still is considered legal unless you lose the "badge". I found this out from a guy who didn't want to pay like 15K plus for an MP5 and found out if he did it that way it would have been just something like 2K. Can't verify, but just like certain body armor, if you can get an leo or mil to sign off on it, you can buy it.

That is a very dangerous, and wrong, statement...

dakid2
April 27, 2008, 12:13 PM
One it's not dangerous. Two it's not wrong prove it. The sheriff here has the option of doing that and if you know him and he knows you (especially with class IIIs and all) he can legally do that. I stand corrected when you show me how that is wrong or dangerous. This guy would not do anybody but a select few and it never hurts to ask worst he says is no. Just like having him sign off to order body armor. How is that wrong and dangerous? This is super rural VA though. At least stay chill and explain why instead of VERY DANGEROUS VERY WRONG....(but won't say why). Why respond then?

DonR101395
April 27, 2008, 12:28 PM
One it's not dangerous.

The dangerous I believe he's referring to is legally dangerous. It wouldn't take much for the ATF to see through that type of scam.


Two it's not wrong prove it.

Post 86 samples can be owned by an agency or SOT for demo purposes, not an individual.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm

(M2) How can an individual legally acquire NFA firearms? [Back]

Basically, there are 2 ways that an individual (who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from receiving or possessing firearms) may legally acquire NFA firearms:

1.

By transfer after approval by ATF of a registered weapon from its lawful owner residing in the same State as the transferee.
2.

By obtaining prior approval from ATF to make NFA firearms.



The sheriff here has the option of doing that and if you know him and he knows you (especially with class IIIs and all) he can legally do that.

No he doesn't. If he is deputizing people for the sole purpose of bypassing NFA tax laws he is conspiring to commit tax fraud.

Just like having him sign off to order body armor. How is that wrong and dangerous? This is super rural VA though.

Unless there is a state law against owning body armor, the leo/mil sales are company policy not law.

VUPDblue
April 27, 2008, 02:57 PM
OK, you asked for it....

Dangerous- a person can and will be prosecuted for tax evasion, and illegal posession of a machinegun if the scenario you posted turned out to be true. The sheriff or cheif or whomever would also be charged with conspiracy to commit tax evason and illegal transfer of a title II firearm. There is more than one 'loophole' way to own title II firearms, but a wise person wouldn't do any of it.

A Sheriff cannot simply say 'presto' you're my deputy, and here's an MP5! What would you tell an ATF agent if you happened to encounter one and they asked to see your paperwork. It would be something like '.....uh, I'm Sheriff Buford's special deputy and this is my duty weapon...' And then you would be in for a trip to the pen.


AND... I can reference a similar case RIGHT HERE IN INDIANA! The sheriff of Grant County (I belive it was Grant) was just indicted and prosecuted for a very similar type of scandal. He was buying back department weapons from the local .gov for very minimal $$ and then selling them for personal profit. It all appeared legit on the surface, but now a once respectable man is an inmate in a system that he once ran....


ETA: I am 100% sick of these scenarios dealing with 'free' or 'loophole' ways to own NFA items. It is this kind of stupid selfish immature behavior that may get it ruined for the rest of us law-abiding NFA owners. That may be harsh, but, damn, pay your $200 tax and GET OVER IT. If you don't like that $800 M16's are selling for $20k, then WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN!

VUPDblue
April 28, 2008, 01:44 PM
Here's one from this year, just for giggles...

Gun offenses send three law enforcers to prison

Thursday, April 10, 2008
THE SAGINAW NEWS

MIDLAND -- A man who helped send people to prison is headed to prison himself. Former Midland County Assistant Prosecutor Frederick A. MacKinnon will spend five years in a federal lockup for abusing the authority of his office to obtain seven machine guns and nine silencers for personal use. MacKinnon was Ogemaw County prosecutor when the offenses occurred.

A jury in August convicted MacKinnon and Maxwell L. Garnett, 56, former Rose City police chief, of 51 charges. The jury found a third defendant, Gary J. Theunick, 59, a former Ogemaw County chief assistant prosecutor and Saginaw police officer, guilty of 26 charges. Theunick and Garnett are both of Rose City.

All of the counts involve unlawful possession of machine guns and silencers, including four .22-caliber silencers, a .223-caliber machine gun, a .45-caliber submachine gun and a 9 mm submachine gun.

U.S. District Judge Robert H. Cleland sentenced Mac-Kinnon, 54, of Hale on Tuesday. Cleland earlier sentenced Garnett to 71 months in prison and Theunick to 63 months.

The men started buying the guns in 1999. Federal law restricts the possession of machine guns. Authorities indicted them in 2005.

Former Midland Prosecutor Norman Donker hired MacKinnon in April 2001. Current Prosecutor Michael Carpenter took office on Jan. 1, 2005, and fired Mac-Kinnon on Jan. 19, 2005, immediately after reviewing the criminal allegations against MacKinnon. Theunick retired from the Saginaw Police Department in 1994 after 20 years as a patrol officer.

Bottom line: Don't be an idiot!

Long Tom
April 28, 2008, 02:59 PM
WOW. This started as a basic question. Apparently it is NOT legal to own a M14 with a selector lock even if it was bought from a dept. and and then sold as a semi-auto by an officer to a civi.
But what it also tells me, is the DOD is not keeping track of it's property.
The police can and do dispose of DOD property as they see fit.
If the DOD started inventory in 2002.. how long does it take to find out they
are missing a few?
It seems the only one's playing by the rules are the civilians.
As for myself I was'nt interested in the piece, I collect knives not guns.


LT

James K
April 28, 2008, 08:53 PM
It doesn't matter if DoD did or did not "lose track" of a gun, some gun, or all of them. If an individual is found with an M14, he will be arrested, indicted and possibly imprisoned. In one case I know of, a three star general testified that the Army had NEVER released ANY M14 rifles for civilian sale, period. And that, therefore, ANY GI M14 in civilian hands was not only illegal, but stolen property, period.

So who will a judge or jury believe? An Army general, or Joe Slob, who says he bought the M14 from his cop cousin, and that the guys on some web site said it is OK? If he is lucky, he gets probation, but no matter what, he is a felon who can never again own any kind of gun except an antique.

Jim

BerettaFox
April 28, 2008, 09:22 PM
for it to be a machine gun, it must fire automatic. if it's semi-auto only.... it's semi-auto only, and there aren't issues.... you said this was a semi auto m14. so it's just a cool gun, not a class 3 weapon, unless the barrel is chopped.

HKuser
April 28, 2008, 09:59 PM
No, most M14s were locked to shoot semi only, but are still machine guns. The ATF, backed up by case law, considers any gun that was ever a machinegun to be a machinegun and subject to the registry, or contraband.

wjkuleck
April 28, 2008, 11:57 PM
No, most M14s were locked to shoot semi only, but are still machine guns. The ATF, backed up by case law, considers any gun that was ever a machinegun to be a machinegun and subject to the registry, or contraband.

This is entirely correct. There are about 50 M14s on the registry, legal to own. Some came out of H&R when it closed, some from TRW, etc. There is one TRW M14NM that was adjudicated to be semauto (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_m_14.txt), but that's it. All the others are on the registry—or contraband.

http://www.fulton-armory.com/TRW-03-1000.jpg (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_m_14.txt)

Regards,

Walt

Long Tom
April 29, 2008, 01:04 AM
Mr. Keenan,
If you would have bothered to read my last post, I said my question was answered, NO ONE CAN BUY OR SELL A USGI M14..
As to the DOD not keeping track? Not my problem.
Go back to the first post and see who was trying to sell the item.

Powderman
April 29, 2008, 01:17 AM
You could also try if your buddy buddy with the sheriff to deputize you and allow you to purchase the weapon. Out here that isn't that far fetched and still is considered legal unless you lose the "badge". I found this out from a guy who didn't want to pay like 15K plus for an MP5 and found out if he did it that way it would have been just something like 2K. Can't verify, but just like certain body armor, if you can get an leo or mil to sign off on it, you can buy it.

Negative. Full stop. Halt.

It is NOT now, nor has it EVER been (since the closing of the NFA register) legal to do as you suggest, ANYWHERE, here in the United States.

Can an individual LEO purchase a fully automatic firearm? Yes, without a doubt. HOWEVER, they still have to jump through ALL the hoops that a non-LEO would have to. This includes FULL compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws. As an example, I live in WA State--which means that I cannot legally own full auto, SBS/SBR or AOW, EVEN as a police officer for private use.

Can an individual LEO purchase a full-auto as a DUTY gun? Yes--and it CAN be of recent manufacture, and of any current model.

HOWEVER...

The firearm will be NON-TRANSFERABLE. The firearm MUST be purchased on Department letterhead, with the Chief's signature, and MUST be used as a duty weapon. Here's the important part...

WHEN the officer leaves the Department, the FA firearm MUST REMAIN WITH THE DEPARTMENT, unless the officer is rehired by another Department, AND they agree to a transfer of custody between Departments.

If the LEO leaves the law enforcement profession--as in fully sworn police officer, THEY LOSE THE FIREARM, WITHOUT HOPE OF COMPENSATION OR REIMBURSEMENT.

Even though this is legal, I have NEVER heard of ANY Department in the United States approving the private purchase of a full auto firearm by an individual officer for duty use.

As far as being "buddy buddy" with the Sheriff, and having them "deputize" you for this purpose, there are so many things ethically wrong--and ILLEGAL--about that statement that I won't even comment on them.

GunnyPig
May 12, 2008, 09:15 AM
The M14 is not a machinegun nor was it ever to include the full auto models. It is a "Battle Rifle". The full auto M16 A1 and the M16A2 with the three round burst is not a machine gun either, it too is a "rifle". I was a marine and my job was "machinegunner'. A M2 50cal and an M60 E2 and E3 are machineguns.

Patrol: In the eyes of the BATF&E for civilian use, any firearm that fires more than one round with a single pull of the trigger is dubbed a MG. An automatic weapon or three round burst is considered a MG. This includes M16's, M4's MP5's, etc. It has nothing to do with the purpose built light & heavy MG's procured by the mil. Even a guy that has malfunction on the range with his semi-auto AR unintentionally firing more than round with one pull of the trigger can, and has been in one case that I know of WHERE THE WEAPON WAS FOUND TO HAVE NOT BEEN ILLEGALLY MODIFIED TO DO SO, be prosecuted for possession of a MG without a stamp.

dakid2
May 17, 2008, 08:55 PM
Powderman and VUPD chill. The buddy buddy thing was taking out and beaten like a dead horse. If you ARE WILLING TO become a true deputy and uphold that position not just for the gun and can get that weapon in the process why not. You totally misread that or I wrote it wrong. If I asked to due that I would in fact BE a deputy and fulfill my duties as one, not get a hook up like the deputy **** your talking about that happens out in Cali and stuff that I read on the War on Guns blog. Relax and have a calm conversation, it does wonders and keeps people around to discuss. This is one reason I hear so many people say they stay away from forums. You can't "read" a person through text so don't assume and start a calm discussion and go from there. Geez

Powderman
May 18, 2008, 12:17 AM
Sorry if I offended.

When I read something along the lines of using your badge or position for personal gain, or signing up to be a cop just so you can get to shoot cool stuff, it raises my blood pressure somewhat.

Again, sorry if I offended you.

VUPDblue
May 18, 2008, 07:09 AM
Sorry if I offended.

When I read something along the lines of using your badge or position for personal gain, or signing up to be a cop just so you can get to shoot cool stuff, it raises my blood pressure somewhat.

Again, sorry if I offended you

+1 here, but it seemed like something sinister at face value the first time around....

dlseeber
May 18, 2008, 05:46 PM
I don't care what it is, it truly is and always will be a beautiful rifle. IMHO, it is the best "battle rifle" ever made, hands down!!:)

SCLEstudent
May 3, 2009, 12:36 AM
I've not used bulletin boards on the internet much; in fact I just recently started searching these firearm boards. I am currently a Criminal Justice student with a emphasis on Law Enforcement, and hold two suppressors that I purchased both of which have their own tax form. I am asking about buying a SWD M11:http://firearmdeals.com/Dons/M11_Lage_11112008_%20014.jpg

The article says that this gun is civilian transferable gun so I assume that it's pre 1986. I am only getting this for sport and fun (not even hunting), and I will make sure that I get the tax stamps (one for gun, one for suppressor) approved by my local PD chief before I put the money down on the weapon (which is 4k). I just want to make sure that I am going through this process legally because I have always strived to keep my record pristine and as a student I recognize the law to its utmost. I have two suppressors already that I had no problem getting after a three month wait. So, any advice will be much appreciated - even if its to tell me that it not possible to own one of these weapons. I have read about owning pre86 SMGs for individuals of my state, South Carolina, and found out that as long as you pay the $200 tax stamd you can buy any pre86 machine gun, and even destructive devices as long as you get that $200 stamp for each mortar or grenade. As you can expect that adds up to ALOT of taxes. I anly want a sport gun that runs through rounds to have fun with and hone my skills on my own 1,000 acre property. By doing this will I be inside the law still?

VUPDblue
May 10, 2009, 09:39 AM
If it's a transferable, the process to obtain it is the exact same as the process you went through to get your suppressors.

Hkmp5sd
May 10, 2009, 11:42 AM
You could also try if your buddy buddy with the sheriff to deputize you and allow you to purchase the weapon. Out here that isn't that far fetched and still is considered legal unless you lose the "badge".

Interesting that back in the Clinton administration, members of congress and their staff used this very method to bypass Washington DC gun laws. They were issued credentials as US Marshals.

Starvingboy
May 27, 2009, 09:32 PM
Hey guys, I've seen/shot a factory original M14 semi. Says so right on the receiver, originally came that way. The bit where the selector switch goes is smooth, never milled out, factory original delete. I'll have to check the manufacturer next time I get a chance, I though it was Springfield armory, but I'm not certain. The guy I know that has it has had it for many years, and says it's a rare gun.. I guess it is :D Point being, if the one I know of exists, there must be more...

DonR101395
May 27, 2009, 09:36 PM
Hey guys, I've seen/shot a factory original M14 semi. Says so right on the receiver, originally came that way. The bit where the selector switch goes is smooth, never milled out, factory original delete. I'll have to check the manufacturer next time I get a chance, I though it was Springfield armory, but I'm not certain. The guy I know that has it has had it for many years, and says it's a rare gun.. I guess it is Point being, if the one I know of exists, there must be more...


Federal Ordnance made a number of semi-auto M14s as did Norinco/Polytech.

wjkuleck
May 28, 2009, 06:52 AM
Fulton Armory receivers are marked "M14," as are others.

The only semiauto USGI M14s are the M14NMs, which have the selector boss, albeit welded.

http://www.1911timewarp.com/Pics/DSC00423-800_50.jpg

Regards,

Walt

wjkuleck
May 28, 2009, 07:07 AM
It doesn't matter if DoD did or did not "lose track" of a gun, some gun, or all of them. If an individual is found with an M14, he will be arrested, indicted and possibly imprisoned. In one case I know of, a three star general testified that the Army had NEVER released ANY M14 rifles for civilian sale, period. And that, therefore, ANY GI M14 in civilian hands was not only illegal, but stolen property, period.
That is almost correct. M14s were issued by the DoD to DCM (now CMP) affiliated clubs. However, in the last year or so the CMP has issued a recall for all the club M14s. Until then, a civilian could be legally in the possession of a DoD M14, so long as it was a DCM/CMP club gun.

The true M14s out in the civilian population have come from several sources. The Department of Energy had M14s for nuclear facilities guards, but disposed of them before '86. When HRA went Chapter 7 and was liquidated, the M14s in the possession of the company were sold off. These, of course, were never DoD guns; they were the property of HRA.

Also, TRW presented M14NMs to "friends of the company," which is how the only legeally-defined true M14 semiauto (only) in civilian hands came to be.

So true M14s can be had legally. Until quite recently, it was legal for DCM/CMP-affiliated club members to be in possession of DoD-loaned M14s. There are true M14s that never went to the DoD; Frank Iannamico has had one on offer at this time; I'm not sure if it has been sold or not. If you have $35,000 to spare and are interested, I'll put you into contact with him.

The only full-auto M14-type rifle I've fired is Frank's select-fire Springfield, Inc. M1A, a rifle built and NFA-registered prior to '86, of course. Note that "Springfield, Inc." may be "the oldest name in American gunmaking," but the name is the only thing in common with the real Springfield Armory, the National ARmory in Springfield, MA closed by then-SecDef McNamara in '68. The confusion is deliberate, though a brilliant marketing ploy.

Regards,

Walt

PointBlank
May 30, 2009, 12:32 AM
Here's a update on the LE M14.
It was USGI rifle loaned to a dept. that mistakenly sold so it could purchase
new weapons.
The rifle was beautiful with only storage rack dings on the stock.
The metal finish was mint. The selector was locked. It was maufactured in 1961. It was field stripped and found to be very well marked.

After all the advise on this topic of which I am very grateful, the rifle was sold back to the Dept.

The world is safe again Mr.Keenan.


PointBlank.