LOCKED
 |
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:22:05 PM
Steve,
I'm of the opinion this young-un should be banned since he obviously can't read the rules of the board and has continued to violate them (even after chastising). I mean he posts, and I quote, "Bushmaster's Statement Regarding Machine Gun Parts" - Not a BATF opinion letter, nor the relavant law. But the opinion of the marketing/sales guys at Bushmaster. BTW I'll bet the young-un goes to Taco Bell for medical advice. I mean they make food, so they should know all about nutrition right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:34:17 PM
Ahh yes the Manufactures know so much - Like when DPMS was selling post-ban rifles with welded on 'Flash Supressors' because 'they thought' it was legal (none of them bothered to read the law). Thus selling 1000's of illegal rifles to unsuspecting customers. Even though there were people on this board that said they were in violation of the law. Yeah trust the manufactures say over the law (or the opinion of a professional lawyer). Real smart. |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:35:05 PM
Forest,
Right, and I'd rely on a priest to judge the legal enforceability of a pre-nup. Well, I called Bushmaster. Their placement of that statement is not based on a letter, the law or anything actually in writing. It was a "feeling" that they had about the ATF and, more importantly, there wanting to be on the safe side; something I completely understand. Guess what? They are going to review the statement. I'm faxing them a letter with from my office giving them the points of law and Owens' letters that seem to be lost on our young friend. Even Bushmaster gets it. Sheesh. |
|
|
Clay-More
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: May 2002  VA, USA
 Posts: 10 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:49:40 PM
Steve-in-VA,
I second Forest's motion. The sophomoric diatribes above rival those of BOG. Should this behavior be tolerated in a civilized society? I think not. BAN HIM!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 8:29:13 PM
whoa guys, looks like i might have created a shitstorm.
 Oh well, looks like i got my answer. i was basically worried because of that bushmaster statement, but now i see that's not totally true. but in any case, thanx for clearing this up all, now, about that troll....... |
|
|
|
NAM
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2002 WI, USA
Posts: 213 Feedback: 100% (41) Link To This Post |
Posted: 10/10/2002 8:30:43 PM
Lol...so the federal law was written by an idiot? Clearly the federal law and the manufacturer's opinions differ. I guess we know who isn't going to bag the prom queen(m60308nato) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2002 9:16:58 AM
[Last Edit: 10/11/2002 10:22:35 AM by EdAvilaSr]
m60308nato:
Sir,in order to keep the "conversation" flowing smoothly,we keep the replies civil and respectful to our fellow members. There will be no name calling or personal attacks to ANYONE.....from you or anybody else. This board is for the exchange of information and friendly interaction among responsible gun owners. You can disagree all you want,but personal insults,attacks,threats,and all other undesirable conduct will not be tolerated. Have a good day! |
|
|
Zoomer
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Jun 2002 AZ, USA
Posts: 36 Feedback: 100% (5) Link To This Post |
Posted: 10/11/2002 1:50:37 PM
  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2002 2:45:36 PM
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 3:01:42 PM by Prebandanna]
Whew, sounds like things got a little out of hand here! Before someone kills this thread, could you please respond to one more thought. In all fairness to m60308nato, it is sometimes very difficult to sort out misinformation, expecially when it appears as an endorsed article on this very forum. If your position is correct, how could knowledgeable administrators have allowed the posting of such an erroneous article? I refer specifically the the article's statement, "though the rifle will not be capable of full-auto, will still be in violation of the law." This appears to run counter to the interpretation a put forward on this thread. Thank you.
http://old.ar15.com/docs/AR15-M16Parts/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2002 5:42:23 PM
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 5:46:22 PM by Steve-in-VA]
Article was put there a long time ago, before I was even a mod. So I con't tell you why it's there.
Again, NO FLAME INTENDED, but why don't you look at the Code section. Read the letter from ATF from March of '99- they quote the definition of MG contained in the NFA code section and interpret it correctly. You "can" have an illegal MG "if" you have enough parts to enable FA. It's THAT SIMPLE. Why anyone needs to "interpret" the section is beyond me; it certainly does not take a lawyer to discern the plain language of the statute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2002 7:24:49 PM
Hi Steve in VA--
Thanks for the response. Yea, Looks like you are probably correct. The law does seem pretty straight forward, as written. I guess laymen are sometimes cynical of legal language. We feel more comfortable when it comes from an interpreter, rather than trust what it says, directly from the source. Maybe that's why there are so many lawyers and preachers. Take care, guys. |
|
|
|
Ky_Bob
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Feb 2001 KY, USA
Posts: 792 Feedback: 100% (76) Link To This Post |
Posted: 10/13/2002 7:38:33 PM
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 10:46:29 PM by AR15forfun]
M60308Nato is the same guy who said that blowback 9mm pistols actually open the slide (and chamber) before the bullet leaves the barrel. He got spanked on that misinformation as well. Kinda like on this thread, he just disappeared.
Sounds like he has been taking some things he heard around the gunshop as fact. |
|
|
Ekie
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Jan 2001 MO, USA
Posts: 288 Feedback: 100% (97) Link To This Post |
Posted: 10/13/2002 10:44:17 PM
Gee whiz, was out of town for a week and missed all the fun.
Knock, knock, THIS IS THE ATF, you are under arrest for violating something that is on Bushmaster's web site, BOY YOU IN BIG TROUBLE. BTW, I am not much on banning people, but gee that is tempting ain't it? |
|
|
|
ProfGAB101
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Aug 2002 CO, USA
Posts: 222 Feedback: 100% (2) Link To This Post |
Posted: 10/14/2002 12:39:51 AM
Steve-in-VA - I tried to search the AFT website for this - got over 700 hits in the WAIS database, all garbage. Is there a direct link or a way to obtain a copy. (Please!) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2002 7:43:13 AM
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 4:32:32 PM by Steve-in-VA]
That quote is from the March 1999 letter linked in Circuit's reply on page one. Just click and go.
Bushmaster responded in writing to my letter indicating that the will do the research and look into changing the wording on the statement. They will not, however, change there policy regarding the selling of MG parts to only LEO or Form 4 holders. Something I completely respect. ETA: They did not do shit- they are stating something is illegal when it is not. They are irresponsible and very short-sighted in doing so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2002 5:26:56 PM
Well I read the law and I read Bushmasters position. I guess the fact that Bushmaster sells parts to the public may influence their postings?
I was ina n armorers class recently for the M16 and sat beside at ATF agent. He answered this question for class and his answer is interesting. He stated probably not the way the law is written. However, sometimes interpretations are made by individuals which may be detrimental to AR owners regardless of the final court decisions. Which plainly stated means the law probably does not prohibit M16 parts in an AR which does not have an auto sear, but field agents may interpret (incorrectly) this law and confiscate the weapon, arrest you and after expensive legal bills you may ultimately win the case. Stuff happens. But I agree, the parts are legal by defination. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2002 5:33:07 PM
Well I read the law and I read Bushmasters position. I guess the fact that Bushmaster sells parts to the public may influence their postings?
I was ina n armorers class recently for the M16 and sat beside at ATF agent. He answered this question for class and his answer is interesting. He stated probably not the way the law is written. However, sometimes interpretations are made by individuals which may be detrimental to AR owners regardless of the final court decisions. Which plainly stated means the law probably does not prohibit M16 parts in an AR which does not have an auto sear, but field agents may interpret (incorrectly) this law and confiscate the weapon, arrest you and after expensive legal bills you may ultimately win the case. Stuff happens. But I agree, the parts are legal by defination. |
|
|
|
USNJoe_Retired
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2001 WA, USA
Posts: 1339 Feedback: 0% (0) Link To This Post |
Posted: 11/15/2002 5:15:55 AM
I bought a nice SP1, took it home and found out it had an M16 trigger in it, probably from the factory.
I tossed it in the trash, then I relayed my story on the forum boards. After further review I now feel that I tossed that M16 trigger too soon. Of course Dave G could always write the ATF a letter... |
|
|
Feedingcannibal
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Aug 2002 MI, USA
Posts: 88 Feedback: 100% (28) Link To This Post |
Posted: 11/15/2002 10:20:30 AM
Ok, now that the legalities of the M16 bolt & carrier have apparently been ironed out (thanks, Steve), can anyone convince me to toss my AR15 carrier & replace it with an M16? Are the M16 carriers of better quality to such an extent that replacement is worth it? (I have a stock DPMS A-15.)
|
|
|
|
NAM
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2002 WI, USA
Posts: 335 Feedback: 100% (41) Link To This Post |
Posted: 11/15/2002 6:56:52 PM
Cannibal,
IF you have no reason to do it, Don't. Some people use M16 carriers in competition due to the extra weight. I myself have an older SP1. I can find slick side carriers, but usually they are M16 carriers. So it's not really for any reason other than that's all i can find. IF i were you, unless you thing the heavier carrier will benefit you, i'd stick with what you've got. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. |
|
|
Dano523
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2001  ZWE
Posts: 1033 Feedback: 100% (4) Link To This Post |
Posted: 12/30/2002 2:55:40 AM
Ok boys and girls, it's story time.
A while back, guys were using M-16 parts, minus the auto sear in there SP-1's. By using soft pistol primers, the rifles would fire semi and full auto using "hammer follow threw". Since, at the time, the rules stated that the the "auto-sear" was the illegal part only, then BATF a hard time on conviction. Since then, they changed the ruling to included all the M-16 fire control parts, being the carrier the most important part, since a AR-15 hammer will not bind on the firing pin, and the hood allowing just enough pressure to set off the soft pistol primers on follow-threw. Will the BATF bust your ass for having just the M-16 carrier in the rifle, can you say "Intent to create a machine gun". Mods, please edit this if needed, but to make the point, I needed to give the full story. Dano |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 10:37:46 PM
Dano, There is no such ruling. They warn against, as do I, stockpiling mg parts since an eventual accumulation could contain enough to enable FA. However, if I understand what you are saying, the M16 bolt, for the reasons you state, will allow FA. If this is true, I am not sure either way, then your point is taken and completely consistent with the Federal Code section, which btw should be the gravamen of all these discussions. |
|
|
|
NAM
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Jul 2002 WI, USA
Posts: 526 Feedback: 100% (41) Link To This Post |
Posted: 12/30/2002 11:16:03 PM
He fails to mention one thing. An AR-15 WILL NOT fire full auto (slam fire) with an M16 bolt carrier. In order for this situation to be even remotely possible one must first remove the disconnector. IF you keep the disconnector in place, there will be no possibility of slam firing. Therefore, an M16 carrier would not make your AR-15 a fully automatic rifle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2002 12:23:59 AM
That was my understanding as well, but you never know, shit happens.
|
|
|
Dano523
Team Member
Team Member
Joined: Mar 2001 ZWE
Posts: 1046 Feedback: 100% (4) Link To This Post |
Posted: 12/31/2002 4:48:48 AM
Guys, please notice the wording that I used.
"Will the BATF bust your ass for having just the M-16 carrier in the rifle, can you say "Intent to create a machine gun". Since all that would be required for the BATF to get your rifle running would be a toothpick/match stick/ or anything else to hold the disconnector back, then you have no chance of winning a Federal case against you. And, since the carrier is listed in the don't use list, you have given them even more fuel for the fire to roast you in court. Remember, You can still be found guilty by "Intent to create". Not wether you got the rifle up and running. It's the same reason that we don't do "How to convert" information here. |
|
LOCKED
