User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 4:21:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Dull-shooterM4]
[#1]
OK! now I am pissed. Obvoiusly you do not understand what "Technically" means ...by definition.
Tech·nic·al·ly adv. In a technical manner; according to the signification of terms as used in any art, business, or profession. ALL LAWS get challenged and ALL LAWS are subject to interpretation by a court. All laws are not taken on their literal interpretation. some are interpreted on the "spirit of the law", meaning that the law is interpreted on its intent and NOT its literal wording. #1 EXAMPLE: THE 2ND AMENDMENT! (YOU DO KNOW WHAT THAT IS DON'T YA?) HAS BEEN ARGUED OVER TIME AND TIME AGAIN. IF THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN SO CLEARLY, THEN WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY STUPID ASSES TRYING TO REGULATE AND BAN FIREARMS? 1. Though it is legal, I am stating that it has the potential to cause question in the law enforcement communities (even if it is because of their ignorance) and you could still be charged with unlawful possesion of a MG. Then the burden of proof falls on you! So even though it is literally and technically legal, it is still subject to interpretation (via trial). You are out of your f'n mind if you think that it is 100% when you walk into court and think you will not get convicted. There is no legal precedent for this which means that the law can (and will) be challenged/questioned. 2. If you only have a m16 carrier in your AR and nothing else and it does not "double tap" (a double tap can easily be proved to be a failure/malfunction in any AR15 without any m16 parts, and an M16 bolt carrier would not have anything to do with that malfunction) then it is likely that you will not have a problem beating the case....after spending money on a lawyer. 3. I am wasting my time with you since you are obviously an idiot. 4. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE BACK ME ON THIS?????????????? PS: I HAVE M16 CARRIERS IN ALL OF MY AR15'S!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 4:38:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Dull-shooterM4]
[#2]
OK Hydguy, I am not trying to provoke you here, but you may have some difficulty with three syllable words (ok that WAS a cheap shot).
Really, We both agree that it is legal and we both use m16 carriers in our AR's. So what else are we arguing about except for symantics? All i am saying is that it could still end up in front of a judge someday. couldn't it? lets bury this hatchet ok? ...and i am sorry about the three syllable word comment 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 5:56:55 AM EDT
[#3]
m60308nato you made him yor bitch... |
||
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 8:09:30 AM EDT
[#4]
Apparently, scads of match shooters use M16 carriers.
I know for a fact most cops don't know the difference between the two. Nor should they be taking your rifle apart to look, unless they've already arrested you for something else. I doubt most BATF#cks know the difference, apart from the tech branch. They're tax accountants with a Rambo complex. It's legal. Technically. "Technically" the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T mean what you think it means, because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it, but will soon. It will then, technically, de facto and de jure mean what they say it means, regardless of what you think it means. In this context, "Technically" means, "You're right and they'd be wrong to arrest you. Of course, they still might, but then the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE STATE and you obviously don't have a "machine gun" nor parts that could be, since you don't have the hammer, trigger, disconnector, fire selector, sear and sear pin, nor a DIAS." A "double tap" is two deliberate shots. You are speaking of a "double cycle." Which, on a crowded firing line, doesn't draw any attention whatsoever, and happens all the time with light triggers, on everything from ARs to 1911s. When someone insists they have to have the last word, I deny them, as a form of therapy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 8:55:47 AM EDT
[#5]
WOW, this thread has been going for 5 years...
What else can b said? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 3:56:09 PM EDT
[#6]
I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Are you talking to him or me? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 4:00:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Steve-in-VA]
[#7]
Couple of things: One, Hydguy, aside from being right, is not an idiot. Please refrain from doing that again. Two, you come here, five years too late, and try and rehash old news AND you want to blur the federal code section by suggesting it is subject to interpretation and that our understanding is only "technical"- that alone is going to spark some flames. So, don't be so thin-skinned. There's nothing technical (using the term as it often applies in the legal community) about the meaning of the language. Can rogue LE arrest someone by MISREADING the section? Sure, they could also ignore it or simply want to fuck with people despite it. But no reasonable person could find any ambiguity in the language and say it is subject to "interpretation." That's a stretch. Why don't you calm down and leave the thread policing to the mods and staff. |
||
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 10:09:27 PM EDT
[#8]
Yes it's fine but ONLY the carrier
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 10:15:13 PM EDT
[#9]
Wrong. Go to your local Gun Store and look at the Bolt out of a Factory built AR15
you will see a M16 Bolt. |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 10/12/2007 10:17:03 PM EDT
[#10]
5 years and still going strong....
I agree, its a interpretation of the law, not a yes or no answer. I could have a bolt carrier in a AR-15 and the DA can bump fire the weapon in front of a jury and I'm convicted of having a MG. Oh yeah and I am sure they will stop any attempt to prove any ar-15 can do that, since other ar-15s are not in question. Rule of thumb. Do what you want till told specify not to. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2007 4:20:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Hydguy]
[#11]
Wrong. Have you not read this whole damn thread? Yo ucan have as many auto parts in it SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T FIRE MORE THAN ONE ROUNDE PER OPERATION OF THE TRIGGER. The ATF only warns you that if you have M16 parts, and if fires more than one round per operation of the trigger, then you are in possession of an unregistered MG. But that also means that if you have a worn hammer/trigger/sear, even in AR-15/SP1 configuration, and it fires more than one round per pull of the trigger, you are in possession of an unregistered MG, as there is no provision for a mechanical malfunction in the law. Christ on a crutch. Quit trying to read into what the actual provisions say. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2007 4:28:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Wrong there, too. It's not a matter of interpretation. If an AR-15 has a M-16 bolt carrier, hammer selector and trigger, and it only fires one round per operation of the trigger in the fire and 'auto/burst' position, then it is NOT a machine gun. Period. End of story. Now, will some ATF/police officers misread the law, due to the 'opinion' letter, and the rash of internet commandos and Bushmaster with their silly statement? Sure. But their misunderstanding isn't the LAW. The law is clear. |
||
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 10/15/2007 9:02:37 PM EDT
[#13]
I have an M16 Bolt Carrier, Ruger SP101 and I've stock pyled lamp shades and Toyota Tercel hubcaps....this doesn't make my Ford F-150 an unregistered Machinegun? he
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2007 9:11:23 AM EDT
[#14]
I don't get it? Is it Legal or not?
 STOP THE MADNESS |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2007 8:10:46 PM EDT
[#15]
It is legal. Period.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 11/17/2007 1:48:02 PM EDT
[#16]
I got locked on this but wanted to say thank you Steve-in-VA for clearing this up for me. I now feel comfortable installing a FA BC in my AR. I want one of these for nothing more than the increased durability and slowed lock time. Holly crap a five year old thread I should have searched first.
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 11/17/2007 7:20:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Reduced lock time, certainly. I doubt it's going to make any difference on durability. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2007 8:48:43 AM EDT
[#18]
Not to stir up the hornets nest, but, what if you used a Cenier M16 full auto .22 conversion kit in your semi auto. I would "think" you could because there is no way for the kit to go full auto.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2007 12:14:56 PM EDT
[#19]
Does it fire more than one round per operation of the trigger? Is it readily convertable to do so? 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2007 1:03:19 PM EDT
[#20]
It only fires one round per trigger pull. It is not readily convertable to full auto.
|
|||
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 3:11:06 PM EDT
[#21]
I'm not reading 19 pages so sorry if it's been said. Steve, is absolutely right. I am LE who has a clue. I asked on of my ATF friends in the compliance section. The full auto BCG is NOT exclusive to making a MG. In fact a AR15 BCG in a MG will work. This is not something that will end ur ass up in jail. It's everythign else that guy you heard about had ALONG WITH THE BCG that got him up the creek. Full auto BCG alone breaks no law!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 3:28:01 PM EDT
[#22]
He is right. I'll elaborate. Colt' Patent Firearm Manuf. pres. Carlton Chen received a letter from BATFE stating that they are NOT saying it's legal, but they are also NOT saying that it is illegal, but simply saying that if it causes the weapon in question to fire automatically, then it is a machine gun, and subject to NFA law. Now, ya'll know as well as I do that simply installing an M-16 carrier will NOT make the weapon go full-auto. |
||
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 4:48:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Ok, could somebody please direct me to the page of this cronicle that illustrated best the legality of the carrier? Preferably a link to a .gov letter or the like.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 4:49:24 PM EDT
[#24]
That letter is posted in this thread (page 12); the message you reference from the ATF has been referenced in several different letters throughout this thread starting at page one. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 4:56:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Rescue43]
[#25]
I must have missed it. My mistake! Please forgive me for posting correct info. Call it whatever, but I was just trying to help clarify, and admittedly I did not read every single page. Of course, I didn't notice it until I had already quoted, but what the O.P.said was OLD. |
|||
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 5:13:38 PM EDT
[#26]
This is the thread that doesn't end.
Yes, it goes on and on my friend. Some people started arguing not knowing what it was and they'll continue arguing forever just because This is the thread that doesn't end. Yes, it goes on and on my friend. Some people started arguing not knowing what it was and they'll continue arguing forever just because This is the thread that doesn't end. Yes, it goes on and on my friend. Some people started arguing not knowing what it was and they'll continue arguing forever just because This is the thread that doesn't end. Yes, it goes on and on my friend. Some people started arguing not knowing what it was and they'll continue arguing forever just because... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 9:28:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Just stirin' the pot a little.
There are guns that fire more than one shot with one continuous pull of the trigger and are not NFA weapons. They are perfectly legal without a tax stamp and could be cash and carry(with appropriate forms) depending on your local laws. More to come as I do more research. 
|
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2007 9:58:18 PM EDT
[#28]
Well, that covers gatlings and mitrailleux, certain C&R weapons and one could conceivably make something with a multi-stage trigger--each stage fires a round.
Actually, that last is not a bad idea for a 3 round burst. |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 12/20/2007 2:47:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Stahlgewehr762]
[#29]
I only read to page 10, and by that point everything relevant had been covered except for one thing: ATF considers the removal of a firearm's disconnector to be permissible for purposes of evaluating whether or not a firearm is "readily restorable to full automatic" (more than one shot per trigger pull) status. This is exactly why open bolt semi-autos were banned. Even though they would not fire more than one shot per trigger pull when factory stock, they would do so when the disconnector was modified or removed. Note that it is not the open bolt design that makes these firearms illegal, it is the fact that altering the O.B. firearm's disconnector (readily restorable) makes them fire full auto. This is the same situation with an AR-15 with an M-16 bolt carrier. There is a big difference between a reliably-functioning machinegun and a rifle which doubles every third try, however there is NO difference between them in the context of the legal definition of a machinegun.
Slam fire = machinegun by legal definition. Removal of disconnector to get slam fire = "readily restorable" to automatic fire. Edit: By "slam fire", I actually mean "hammer follow down malfunction-induced firing of one or more rounds". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2007 2:57:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: _DR]
[#30]
I can't believe this debate is still going on....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2007 2:58:48 AM EDT
[#31]
I cant believe people are still replying to this, and putting it back in my active topics. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2007 3:04:58 AM EDT
[#32]
+1, please kill it with fire. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2007 3:06:15 AM EDT
[#33]
I know, the thread started in 2002. 
|
||||
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 12/20/2007 10:53:30 AM EDT
[#34]
That's why the hooked AR hammer is a good thing to have--binds on the carrier and prevents slam fire. Several manufacturers are selling M16 bolts to fit ARs. Frankly, I can't see adding a few grams of metal will make that much difference. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2007 3:33:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: _DR]
[#35]
What to you mean "to fit AR15s"? it's a simple swap. An M16 Carrier will work in any AR15, it perfectly legal. There is no difference in the bolt itself. My Colt LE6920 shipped with an M16 type carrier. I'm not going to get into the extra weight argument. |
|||
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 12/20/2007 4:41:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Sorry, I meant "Selling with" or "Selling for."
Of course they fit. It's a nonissue. I still don't see any point in bothering. But I can weigh the two side by side and report. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2008 8:56:18 AM EDT
[#37]
Crap! I knew I was forgeting something. I usually send this thread a birthday card every year. 
|
|||||
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2008 9:31:50 PM EDT
[#38]
How does this apply, to the THREAD that never ends????
 NFA 26 - USC Chapter 53, pg 88, item 5845,Section B. "(b) Machinegun. The term 'machinegun' means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/18/2008 9:36:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MikeWilliamson]
[#39]
Unless you have an auto sear and milled receiver, LL, DIAS, your only auto fire would come from an old style AR hammer or M16 hammer and a broken disconnector. They've tried to nail people for that before. An AR hammer with notch prevents this from happening. In no case of mechanical failure does the M16 bolt carrier make any difference. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2008 9:37:29 AM EDT
[#40]
You obviously have not read this thread. Please don't rehash old shit here. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 3:39:13 PM EDT
[#41]
+1000. |
||
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 1/24/2008 5:03:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Steve-in-VA]
[#42]
Please don't hijack this thread again with "how to" links about full-auto stuff. I'm not trying to pick on you, I just want this thread to stay somewhat on topic.
Steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2008 5:58:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Steve-in-VA]
[#43]
|
||
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/24/2008 6:38:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Steve-in-VA]
[#44]
Everyone on this forum is, or should be, familiar with that. Note that a legal DIAS costs about $8000. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2008 10:27:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Steve-in-VA]
[#45]
There is a fair bit of mis-information on that page as far as the ownership of M-16 parts goes. So no, not everyone should be familiar with what is written. The only useful info on that page is the timing of the RDIAS. |
|||
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/25/2008 12:48:51 AM EDT
[#46]
Yeah, now that I read it all, it's full of crap. Okay, everyone here SHOULD be familiar with what that page SHOULD say.
|
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 3/23/2008 11:59:09 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
NY, USA
|
Posted: 3/24/2008 12:56:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Hunduh]
[#48]
Just when you thought it was gone......
flyer8493 revives it |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2008 8:05:39 AM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2008 9:19:11 PM EDT
[#50]
Really it should be locktacked (Sure it's a word) with a succint last definitive restatement of the facts. Make it stop.
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
