|
No, Shaggy, not quite. The only DIAS's that are machineguns in and by themselves are those made after the 1981 ruling and serial numbered. The ones made prior to that retained their status, which is that they are legal unless the owner also has a rifle in which they can be installed.
I don't understand the intent of that court case. If the intent of the plaintiff was to have all DIAS's removed from the "combination of parts" status (and thus legal to own without restriction), BATFE would still have the authority to arrest anyone making or attempting to make a machinegun by installing one. If the intent was to force BATFE into declaring all DIAS's to be machineguns, I fail to see the point, since currently owned ones made prior to 1981 would become illegal; they couldn't have an amnesty and registration without a change to the law, since registration is closed, so they would have to be surrendered.
One-in-the-chamber is correct. Either way, a DIAS is useless and its purchase would be pointless, which is why buying one makes about as much sense as that court case.
Whether BATFE had the power to set a cutoff date will be resolved, presumably, in court. But BATFE's rule-making authority is pretty broad, as is the authority of similar regulatory agencies, so no matter what a "web-site lawyer" says, I would not want to engage in activity they say is illegal, then challenge them to arrest me. Even if Shaggy agrees to represent me in court.
There are plenty of precedents for setting ban dates or controlling production and sale while leaving existing items alone. As an example, the FDA quite often bans drugs as of a certain date, but doesn't demand that people surrender the pills in their medicine cabinets.
Jim
|