PDA

View Full Version : Ruger 10 22 full auto conversion legalities


INGunGuy
November 30, 2008, 07:17 PM
OK, before we get into a you cant do this or do that legally, all I need to know is can I convert my Ruger 10 22 to full auto and register it as a FA firearm with the BATF. I understand about the $200 and background checks, etc, etc, etc, but before I undertake this endeavor, I need to know if I can even do it.

I appreciate any information someone can provide.

Thanks,

INGunGuy

PTK
November 30, 2008, 08:45 PM
Nope, no new MG registrations after May 1986. Sorry! To get a full auto 10/22, expect to pay between $8,000 and $10,000.

Hkmp5sd
November 30, 2008, 09:04 PM
As stated, you can only buy a machinegun (in this case, a full auto 10/22) that was registered prior to May, 1986. After that date, no machineguns can be registered for civilian consumption.

INGunGuy
November 30, 2008, 10:36 PM
So then, if I were to register as a manufacturer of firearms, would I then be able to convert my 10 22?

Thanks,

INGunGuy

David Hineline
November 30, 2008, 11:07 PM
If you want to run a firearms manuf. business you could get your manuf. license and pay the yearly SOT fee to manuf. NFA weapons. Then you could make a full auto 10-22 to sell to other dealers or manuf or police departments.

You will never be able to keep it.

Your cheapest way to get a full auto 10-22 would be to buy 2 of them now at 10k$ each , and shoot one for the next 10yrs then sell one of them for $20k.

INGunGuy
November 30, 2008, 11:19 PM
I appreciate all the feedback so far, as I am under-educated about some of the more specifics of owning fully automatic firearms. Since my 10 22 was manufactured before the 1984 ban, would it still fall into the category of being unable to be converted to full auto? So, do the modifications, and register the gun as a pre-84 ban machine gun?

Thanks in advance.

INGunGuy

David Hineline
December 1, 2008, 12:02 AM
Use a bit of common sense, if all semi auto guns made before 1986 ban could now be converted to full auto and registered, why would people be paying $10,000 for a machinegun, when they could just buy an old semi auto and convert it.

INGunGuy
December 1, 2008, 12:13 AM
Well, I am just trying to get all my ducks in a row. So from what I can tell, the ONLY way I can possess NFA weapons would be to purchase a weapon that has been registered, pay the tax, get the background check, then after all is finished, go pick up the weapon.

Correct?

Thanks,

INGunGUy

PTK
December 1, 2008, 12:14 AM
For machineguns, yes. For other items you still have the option of getting a tax stamp and making your own.

David Hineline
December 1, 2008, 03:12 AM
You also must ask your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer for his signature on the forms, if they do not want NFA for you, then a whole new set of paperwork begins to go around the CLEO signoff.

Start by reading this.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt

Then contact your local CLEO and ask if they will sign a form for you to build op buy whatever you decide upon.

INGunGuy
December 1, 2008, 10:46 AM
I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to educate me on the more specifics of owning a NFA firearm, more specifically a machine gun. I have been reading thru the text of the FAQ ON NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT WEAPONS. I may still have some questions, because it seems like unless you are a lawyer you need one to understand some aspects of it.

Thanks,

INGunGuy

RJay
December 1, 2008, 11:17 AM
I know Ingunguy was sincere in his inquiries, but if it were anyone else I would think it was perhaps a reporter or some other individual trying to dig up a angle for a " Did you know" story,:)

VUPDblue
December 1, 2008, 01:05 PM
INgunguy, I assume by your username that you are an Indiana resident. If so, you might want to check out www.ingunowners.com Some very helpful local folks over there;)

INGunGuy
December 1, 2008, 04:20 PM
Yes I am a resident of Indiana, and yes I am a legal gun owner. That is why I am attempting to get all specific information on owning NFA firearms.

Thanks,

INGunGuy

VUPDblue
December 1, 2008, 07:54 PM
Sorry if I offended, I didn't mean to imply that you weren't a legal gun owner, I was simply suggesting that you might enjoy our little local forum...

Nick

Alpine Storm
December 1, 2008, 08:33 PM
sounds like a mole to me

INGunGuy
December 1, 2008, 10:04 PM
NO offense taken at all! LOL. Just stating that I am. Anyway, I have been reading, and why cant I make a machine gun on Form 1, or is that only for supressors, SBR's and SBS's

INGunGuy

PTK
December 1, 2008, 11:05 PM
The Hughes Amendment to the 1986 FOPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act) added 922(o) to the USC... basically, no more new MGs for civilians, period - since it's after the date that law was signed, no more new MGs for civilians, so no more Form 1 MGs. The other classes of NFA items were unaffected, so you can still Form 1 those.

David Hineline
December 2, 2008, 01:07 AM
And that ban was signed into law by our Favorite Republican of all Times Ronald Regan.

Hkmp5sd
December 2, 2008, 03:55 PM
And that ban was signed into law by our Favorite Republican of all Times Ronald Regan.

With the complete approval of the NRA. Reagan offered to veto it. NRA decided the benefits of the '86 FOPA outweighed losing new machineguns.

INGunGuy
December 2, 2008, 05:15 PM
Well, as far as I can tell, unless you are a manufacturer of firearms, you cant build a new machine gun. My question is if being a manufacturer is all I have to do, then why cant I become a manufacturer and have a R&D department that must build machine guns for testing purposes? I may be splitting hairs, and I dont know what else to do other than to pay for an over-priced NFA machine gun.

Thanks,

INGunGuy

Hkmp5sd
December 2, 2008, 06:06 PM
You can become a manufacturer, but you must go all the way. You must have a shop, applicable business licenses, tax numbers and you must engage in the business of manufacturing machineguns for sale. As you will be competing against H&K, Colt, S&W and a host of other manufacturers, the odds of you selling to Law Enforcement and/or the Federal Government (your only remaining clients) are pretty slim. IIRC, the SOT needed to manufacture machineguns is $1,000/year.

Lots of people have thought of this as a way to get around 922(o), including ATF. If they decide you are doing this for the reason of acquiring machineguns for your personal use, they will prosecute you for tax evasion, perjury, illegal possession of machineguns and anything else they can think of.

Either you pay the money for an existing machinegun or you do without.

INGunGuy
December 2, 2008, 08:32 PM
Well hopefully someday we can get The Hughes Amendment thrown out as unconstitutional since it is too restrictive. Anyway, I guess for now I need to save save save so I can get a legal machine gun.

Thanks for all the info!

INGunGuy

David Hineline
December 2, 2008, 08:38 PM
You can be a manuf. but you can't do it to make machineguns for yourself, you have to do it as a business. Lots of people do it but it's like being a Crack dealer, lots of money to be made unless you are addicted to your own product, then you will end up pennyless living in the gutter with a sign that says will work for ammo.

You can get a SWD M11 9mm SMG for around $3500 and be a lot happier in the long run.

ScottsGT
December 4, 2008, 11:42 AM
You can thank Charlie Wrangel for sneaking in the clause to close the registration for new mfgr machine guns in that bill. I read somewhere it was an 11th hour addition?

Hkmp5sd
December 4, 2008, 04:46 PM
Yep. Although it was William Hughes. Charles Rangel was presiding over the house and approved a voice vote that is said to have failed in reality. It is a common tactic to attach something really nasty to a piece of legislation at the last minute with the hopes it will cause the entire package to be shot down. That was his goal, to kill the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act. The NRA had the choice to drop everything and start from scratch or accept the machinegun ban.

ScottsGT
December 4, 2008, 06:51 PM
Sadly though, in 1986 there were a lot less states that allowed ownership of MG's. If it were attempted today, there might be a bigger outcry.

INGunGuy
December 5, 2008, 07:29 AM
The problem really is with our elected officials. They what they want. Look at corporate bailout, or the banking bailout. I know that the NRA lobbied Regan to NOT veto the FOPA, because they felt that the no new machine guns amendment was less important than protecting the firearms owners from the BATF. My question is how come this hasnt been petitioned to be overturned due to constitutionality of the amendment as it infringes upon our right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the constitution didnt specifically draw out what types of firearms we can or can't keep and bear. Only that our right shall not be infringed upon.

INGunGuy