The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 5, 2005, 11:38 AM   #51
Powderman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2001
Location: Washington State
Posts: 2,166
This thread has no constructive purpose, and has trouble all over it with a capital T. Will someone PLEASE lock it?

So far, at least two people have actively discussed clear violations of Federal law. One has even declared intent.

I have no wish to be lumped into a Federal investigation. Granted, no laws broken yet--but some folks are pushing the envelope.
__________________
Hiding in plain sight...
Powderman is offline  
Old October 5, 2005, 12:15 PM   #52
C Philip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 784
I was under the impression that is was legal to make your own MG as long as you registered it. Does that only apply if you build it from scratch? Or could you legally machine your own full auto conversion part for a gun, register it, and be legal?
C Philip is offline  
Old October 5, 2005, 12:32 PM   #53
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
I was under the impression that is was legal to make your own MG as long as you registered it. Does that only apply if you build it from scratch? Or could you legally machine your own full auto conversion part for a gun, register it, and be legal?
Nope, FOPA'86 cutoff the registration of any MGs made after that date for civilian possession. IOW, under the NFA an individual can make their own machinegun if it is properly registered and tax paid, but the enactment of 18 USC 922(o) in 1986 cutoff the registration process for civilians (thus you can't make a new one because you can't register it).
shaggy is offline  
Old October 5, 2005, 12:47 PM   #54
C Philip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 784
I understand it now, thanks for clearing that up. However, if you buy a legal registered full auto conversion kit, then install it in your gun, aren't you making a machine gun? Or is it ok since the part is registered as a machine gun?
C Philip is offline  
Old October 5, 2005, 01:02 PM   #55
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
The conversion part is the machinegun. For example, I own several registered sears. Although its only a small part, it is registered as a machinegun and must be transfered as a machinegun. Legally it IS a machinegun. When I install one into the host gun, the sear remains the machinegun, but the host firearm temporarily becomes part of the same machinegun while the sear is installed. (its important to note that installation of a registered part should not involve any permanent physical changes to the host firearm that would permantly render it a machinegun after the registered part was removed)

Capice?
shaggy is offline  
Old October 5, 2005, 01:21 PM   #56
C Philip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 784
Yes, I get it now. Thanks again.
C Philip is offline  
Old October 6, 2005, 05:30 PM   #57
Cortland
Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 26
Quote:
IOW, under the NFA an individual can make their own machinegun if it is properly registered and tax paid, but the enactment of 18 USC 922(o) in 1986 cutoff the registration process for civilians (thus you can't make a new one because you can't register it).
To be technical, 922(o) makes civilian possession or transfer of ANY machine gun illegal, but exempts guns registered prior to 1986. It's a fine difference, but is one of the reasons why another 1968-style amnesty wouldn't help with respect to MGs. There have been bills proposed that would hold another amensty, but they also have to fiddle with 922(o) to make it work.
Cortland is offline  
Old October 6, 2005, 05:51 PM   #58
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
To be technical, 922(o) makes civilian possession or transfer of ANY machine gun illegal, but exempts guns registered prior to 1986. It's a fine difference, but is one of the reasons why another 1968-style amnesty wouldn't help with respect to MGs. There have been bills proposed that would hold another amensty, but they also have to fiddle with 922(o) to make it work.
I'm well aware of the concurrent laws regarding NFA and the technicalities thereof - both under title 18 and title 26. Sometimes I find its better to keep it simple than further confuse the issue for the newbies. A fine difference to be sure, but without any significant effect for the purposes of the prior discussion herein.
shaggy is offline  
Old October 6, 2005, 05:54 PM   #59
Cortland
Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 26
Quote:
without any significant effect for the purposes of the prior discussion herein
That is true.
Cortland is offline  
Old October 6, 2005, 06:26 PM   #60
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
Cortland-

Didn't mean that to come off snotty - I hope you didn't take it that way. Its just that many people here are newbies and have enough trouble wrapping their heads around the basics of NFA ownership without getting into hypertechnical legal points (this ain't subguns or sturm...). You are correct, and like the now defunct 1994 AWB, proper registration (or proof of lawful ownership prior to 9-13-94 for the AWB) is only a defense to prosecution for simple possession.
shaggy is offline  
Old October 6, 2005, 07:38 PM   #61
Cortland
Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 26
No, no, no. I know exactly what you mean. It can be difficult enough for new folks to assimilate all the intracacies of federal firearms law without getting all nitpicky and pendatic. I understand completely.

In my previous post I was just trying to be agreeable.
Cortland is offline  
Old October 7, 2005, 01:21 AM   #62
MicroBalrog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2002
Posts: 1,165
Shoestrings are still the way to go.
__________________
NFAOA Repeal 922(o)!
MicroBalrog is offline  
Old October 7, 2005, 03:46 AM   #63
joshua
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2004
Location: norCal
Posts: 2,161
Shoestrings? Wow! That scares me because with my light target AR trigger I can make it rock and roll by slapping the trigger fast. Hmmm... I wonder if they will classify my finger as a machinegun? josh
joshua is offline  
Old October 7, 2005, 06:14 PM   #64
Johnny Guest
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Location: North Texas
Posts: 4,125
This one has gone on too long already.

I need acknowledge Powderman's comments a page or so back - - I was hoping the thread might be an object lesson, and, really, all of the Full Auto Forum regulars here have been very good about urging compliance with the law.

Anyone who's still unclear about the legalities of a home conversion to full auto, please, re-read the entire thread.

Short answer:
DON'T DO IT!
You've been given good advice above.
If you can't comprehend it, just GO AWAY.

Thread closed.

Johnny
__________________
MOLON LABE!
Amendment II ensures the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Blog: Expert Witness
Johnny Guest is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07308 seconds with 10 queries