PDA

View Full Version : FA parts


dajowi
September 5, 2011, 02:13 PM
I assume that it's illegal to possess parts to convert an AR or similar weapon from semiauto to full auto without going through the ATF - Right?

kimbershot
September 5, 2011, 02:29 PM
parts is parts. installed parts is the issue.:eek:

rosewood151
September 5, 2011, 02:38 PM
Having the parts to turn a semi auto AR to a FA AR with out the proper paper work is a problem. The ATF is big on "constructive possession", even if the parts aren't installed having them in the same place as the gun means that as far as the ATF is concerned, they are installed.
If you have an AR lower, with nothing installed, and a 14.6 inch barrel in your safe, also not installed, and a complete 20 inch AR, there is a possibility of a constructive possession charge.
When you say parts, do you mean a registeredDrop in auto sear (DIAS), a lighting link, or lower? At this time, you cannot convert any semi auto AR into a FA, unless you use something that is already on the National Registry (A DIAS, Lightning Link or lower)

James K
September 5, 2011, 08:09 PM
Some parts are considered full auto weapons in and by themselves, or in combination with other parts. An M2 carbine kit IS an NFA firearm, even if no M1 carbine is anywhere around. So are other single or combination of parts for other guns.

It can be confusing. Not too long ago, I saw an ad for DIAS's, saying they were "legal to own" and "no paperwork". True if they were made before BATFE declared them to be themselves machineguns. But while they may be "legal to own", if they are installed on a host firearm, or the owner possesses a suitable host firearm, they are illegal.

So, uninstalled parts could very much be an issue.

Jim

chack
September 5, 2011, 08:11 PM
Not too long ago, I saw an ad for DIAS's, saying they were "legal to own" and "no paperwork".

I see stuff like that and think "sting operation".

medalguy
September 5, 2011, 08:31 PM
Well, if you own a few parts for a FA M16, and you own an AR-15, you're OK as long as you don't have ALL the parts to convert it. There's also the issue of having to do some machining of the AR lower. Most if not all of the early AR's sold by Colt had M16 parts in them. Many of the parts will function fine in the AR-15.

Same with M1 carbine and M2 parts. I bought an M1 Carbine from DCM back in about 1965, and it had M2 slide, trigger housing, hammer, sear but no disconnector lever or disconnector or selector. Many of them were M2s that the Army pulled the minimum parts off and shipped. They were fine.

DIAS is of course another animal entirely.:rolleyes: DIAS, legal to own, yes they are, but they require some paperwork; no paperwork, none except a Form 4.

Skans
September 6, 2011, 08:31 AM
If the sale of "pre-82" DIAS is a sting operation, then it is the longest and stealthiest ATF sting operation ongoing since the 1980's. Given ATF's track record of botching up sting operations (like selling guns to Mexican Drug Cartels), I tend to doubt that ATF has been running a DIAS sting since the 1980's.

My understanding is that if you own a "pre-82" DIAS and no AR15 (or M16 parts), AND you can prove that it was made prior to 1982, then you can legally own a pre-82 DIAS. The big question is, and has always been, how do you prove it was manufactured before 1982? Do they have some special stampings on them? Special machine marks that could only be made pre-82? How do you tell a pre-82 from one made in 1992?

James K
September 6, 2011, 01:39 PM
You don't have to prove the DIAS was made before 1982, they have to prove it was made after. Actually, it rarely matters, since not many people would own a DIAS without also owning an AR15, and that could be the problem. If they want to push it, the purported host firearm need not even be in the same location as the DIAS as long as the DIAS owner can be shown to have easy and regular access to the gun (e.g., at his brother's house).

One point that needs to be brought out, aside from legal issues. When that bill was in the mill, some DIAS makers began turning them as fast and cheaply as possible. The result is that many on the market are made of bad material, even zinc alloy, and won't last for even one magazine. So the buyer pays a hefty price, risks a fine and/or imprisonment, and ends up with nothing.

Jim

Skans
September 6, 2011, 03:33 PM
One point that needs to be brought out, aside from legal issues. When that bill was in the mill, some DIAS makers began turning them as fast and cheaply as possible. The result is that many on the market are made of bad material, even zinc alloy, and won't last for even one magazine. So the buyer pays a hefty price, risks a fine and/or imprisonment, and ends up with nothing.


That's interesting. Since I believe that these same sears could be registered up until 1986 (could be wrong - but not sure why they couldn't be), wouldn't that mean that many of the registered DIAS's could be junk? I've heard that the registered stainless steel ones are the best - but are non-stainless DIAS's junk? That's a chunk of some very expensive "junk", at roughly $9,000 - $11,000.

I guess what I'm really asking is: Are the registered DIAS's physically the same as the sketchy "pre-82" DIAS's?

Really, out of all of the registered .223 full-autos available, I believe the only factory produced machinegun is the AC556. The rest are all some kind of conversion.....never gave it much thought....just rambling now.:o