Originally Posted By rjroberts: >> posted by Steve-in-VA Originally Posted By rjroberts: This thread goes on so long because the lawyers on here will lecture about what the regulations say . . . Based on that statement, you are either really stupid or you simply did not read my posts; then again, those choices are not mutually exclusive especially in light of the rest of the garbage you posted. << Only a stupid person (you used the word) would think another stupid enough to accept such a comment based on a sentence with a cleverly (well, since it was obvious, perhaps not so cleverly) omitted phrase.  That phrase was "and they may very well be right."  So, you see, no one was criticizing or belittling the lawyers:  I actually said you were right, but there were practical issues.

Stupid was a bit strong- now that I see this post methinks "thick" is more appropriate.  

You actually think a qualifier like " they may be right" changes the meaning of that quote?  You were intimating quite clearly that the "lawyers" were the ones dragging this thread out by giving "technical" meanings or some such nonsense, when, in fact, iIt is obvious to most, present company excluded, that this is not the case.  And the rest of your post takes nothing away from that allegation captured in that quote . . . but I'm quite confident you do not possess the tools to wrap your noggin around this concept.   With or without the rest of your quote, the meaning of those words are clear.  Would you rather I quote you in full?- that would have changed nothing.  The post was right there for all to see . . . did I change the text of the phrase I commented on?  No and so your "fast and loose" comment is baseless given the clear meaning of that quote.  The rest of your post  is absolutely irrelevant as it relates to that comment and my response to it. You laid an allegation at my feet, with or without your "they may be right" comment.  I responded and corrected your lame observation.  

As a matter of fact, your entire premise in that post was specious and just plain wrong- the lawyers, mainly me, stated from the beginning that such a practice is NOT the "practicle" thing to do- see where I address this at the end of this post.

Tsk, tsk, if you thought you could base your case on it.  If I needed a lawyer, maybe it would help to have one who would play with the facts to forward my cause.  Then, it might be a liability, because the opposition might just discover it, and destroy my whole case.  Sorry, but your whole post doesn't work, simply because you played a bit fast and loose with the facts.

Wow, that's some pretty impressive jibberish.  You kinda sound like a 1L here, kinda.

Also, it is my understanding, though I am not a lawyer, that not only is it bad form to insult the opposition, but could look bad to the jury, harming your case.

This place is far from a courtroom and I'm not arguing to a trier of fact- I have stated my opinion on this issue over and over again on many threads and it has been consistent.  I will not stand by and let some jonny-come-lately march in here and act as though he is above it all while pointing fingers at those of us who have been trying to give the members of this forum a refreshing jolt of the truth.  This thread was over long ago, you just don't have the grey matter to know it.

My whole post was an attempt to close the issue.  Both sides, if I may presume to characterize the opposing views as sides, have merit.  On the one, there is the law.  As I said in my post, the details of the law can say one thing, and the lawyers and other knowledgeable people commenting on that may be right.  El Abogado, likely a lawyer, based on the name said he'd be confident in defending himself.  Great!  But, he's  a lawyer!

This is more jibberish- like I said, the substance of this thread ended pages ago.  It's tacked for a reason, so everyone can read it.  You can't "close" an issue that has already been settled by those of us who understand and can read a plainly written federal code section.  Your follow up threads are rehashed postings of shit already said with some minutia sprinkled in and some paultry insults to boot.  You state on page 14, in your insightful "I-want-to-bring-this-madness-to-a-close" speech, that the lawyers say one thing, but you and the "practical side" say, "why bother?"  Yes, that is what you said in a nutshell and I don't even have to quote you in full to accurately point this out.  So, this is your insightfull knowledge to "close" this issue?  Guess what, I have been saying this since before you even joined this website.  Here's what I said on page 1 after pointed out the law:

I do agree with your statement, "why risk it?". I say over and over that it serves no purpose, so why do it?

Hell, you should have just quoted me in your post, would have saved some time.  And what were you saying about reading comprehension . . .?

Yes, stupid was a bit harsh, you are obviously a little touched in the head (a thick one at that).

Originally Posted By rjroberts: AK Mike, excellent points, especially the last two paragraphs.  Funny you should mention the DIAS as definitely illegal (Supposedly - I have no direct knowledge - BATF or some agency is running a sting in "SHotgun News" offering DIASs for sale).  I haven't gone deeply into the specific law, but I'll bet it's more of a BATF "finding", "opinion" or some such verbiage.  Of course, it is true that conversion is its only purpose, but in the absence of other necessary parts, it's 3 metal parts making a paperweight (albeit a light one).  No, I really don't want to get the whole argumentt started again,  but unless one has the necessary M16 parts, the DIAS is useless.  But, as you say, the DIAS will get you GONE.  That's one of those gray areas which make careers.  (As an humorous aside, no other purpose intended, one of the most essential elements in such a conversion is the M16 carrier, as the tab at the rear, or the whole raised section, is neeed to trip the sear).  My odd thought process argues against the DIAS being, in itself, a violation, or demonstration of constructive intent.  But, I can see drilling the receiver as prima facie intent to manufacture a machine gun.  In that case, one indeed is manufacturing.  But, as a libertarian, that should not be  an issue, either but, as practical reality, the BATF has its way. Your comments on BATF "manipulating" a rifle to fire more than one shot are well documented.  One doesn't even have to go to any great extent.  Break a firing pin spring/striker retraction spring, give an extra good hit to the pin and, voila, a fixed pin machine gun.  That's happened to people with Garands, M14s and ioher autoloaders n the normal course of life, when a part fails.  So, it's not a stretch to imagine that....well, maybe the less said about "technical tests" the better.

A DIAS is perfectly legal to own, as long as you have no AR to host it in. The pre-'84 ones that you see are legal, per the ATF. You just can't have an AR, as they are not registered.

Locked per request.

Just  because

So is it leagal or not?

Whoa!  Flashback, Man!  Time warp!

Tag for answer

Oh man!  What happened to CIRCUITS? I just IM'd the little fr00t!  M4_aiming _at_U got banned for ripping someone off.

Originally Posted By markm: Oh man!  What happened to CIRCUITS? I just IM'd the little fr00t!  M4_aiming _at_U got banned for ripping someone off.

Don't know about CIRCUITS, he was one of the good guys.  

Originally Posted By FALARAK: Originally Posted By m60308nato: ok talk shit about me asshole when you are wrong dip shit. Having any m16 parts in your ar15 constitutes ownership of an illegal machine gun. And if you would read what I sad you fucking moron I said you need a form4 to order the parts from a factory/manufacturer. AND YOU DO NEED A FORM4 TO ORDER THE PARTS STRAIGHT FROM THE FACTORY. Maybe you should do a little reading before you come in here and tell people its legal to commit a felony you asshole. Wow - that's some good stuff right there.

I missed out on all that, was out of town or something when that guy was posting.

You can quote me on this, I am a lawyer, it is ILLEGAL to have an M16 bolt carrier in your rifle without the class iii permit, whether you know it is in there or not.  I bought an upper at auction and the bolt it came with was M16- i destroyed it.  The law clearly states that if you have any 1 M16 part (trigger, disconnector, safety selector, bolt carrier, hammer)  any 1 of these in your gun MAKES YOUR GUN A MACHINE GUN for all intents and purposes regardless of the rate of actual fire.  ALSO, it is a crime to posses any M16 parts in conjunction with AR15 ownership, it is assumed you will use those parts to make a machine gun and the penalties for any violation are severe.  10 years plus 250 thosand dollar fine is common.

lawdawg430

What's a class III permit?

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: You can quote me on this, I am a lawyer, it is ILLEGAL to have an M16 bolt carrier in your rifle without the class iii permit, whether you know it is in there or not.   lawdawg430

Newsflash.....Just because you passed the bar does not mean you know what you are talking about.

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: You can quote me on this, I am a lawyer, it is ILLEGAL to have an M16 bolt carrier in your rifle without the class iii permit, whether you know it is in there or not.  I bought an upper at auction and the bolt it came with was M16- i destroyed it.  The law clearly states that if you have any 1 M16 part (trigger, disconnector, safety selector, bolt carrier, hammer)  any 1 of these in your gun MAKES YOUR GUN A MACHINE GUN for all intents and purposes regardless of the rate of actual fire.  ALSO, it is a crime to posses any M16 parts in conjunction with AR15 ownership, it is assumed you will use those parts to make a machine gun and the penalties for any violation are severe.  10 years plus 250 thosand dollar fine is common. lawdawg430

YOu need to ask for a refund from the school that gave you a law degree, as they failed to teach you anything. Unless you got your degree during a K-Mart blue light special. That could explain things...

Colt is now putting M-16 carriers in their guns (suprise!), and you don't NEED to have any tax stamp to by the trigger/sear componets according to any BATFE information on their web site, or in the actual CFR.

Once again, just because Bushmaster will not sell the M-16 parts without proof of a tax stamp doesn't make it illegal. Last I checked, Bushmaster wasn't a legal entity, and their business decisions don't carry the weight of law. They don't sell the parts directly due to LIABILITY. That is all.

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: You can quote me on this, I am a lawyer, it is ILLEGAL to have an M16 bolt carrier in your rifle without the class iii permit, whether you know it is in there or not.  I bought an upper at auction and the bolt it came with was M16- i destroyed it.   lawdawg430

I'm a lawyer too, no a real one. . . .   It is legal to have an M16 bolt carrier.  If it were illegal, ATFE would have acted against Colt and other manufacturers long ago.

I like pie, not lawyers.

For those who are arguing that it is illegal to have an M16 bolt carrier in an AR15, please post some legal authority, a link to some legal authority or a citation to some legal authority.

Pleas don't post "I've always heard..." "Colt requires a Form 4" or anything else.  I'm interested in what it says in the law and regs.  Hell, I'll even settle for an official BATFE interpretetion of the law or regs.

The BATFE letters I've seen posted online say if you have M16 fire control components you may get yourself in trouble.  As has been pointed out above, that's not what the statute and regs say.  If you only have the bolt carrier you are within the letter of the law and the regs as I read them.  If I'm wrong, please post legal authority - not heresay or opinion.

Read this:  LINK  It is a link to some analysis by James Bardwell - a respected NFA attorney.

"In a March 11, 1986 memorandum, ATF made the following
observations on this phenomenon:

         "The proposed draft ruling would hold that an AR15 type
    rifle in combination with an M16 hammer, trigger,
    disconnector, selector and bolt carrier is a combination of
    parts from which a machine gun can be assembled and is a
    machine gun if such rifle and parts are in the possession or
    under control of a person.  It would also hold that an AR15
    type rifle in combination with any M16 part or parts (whether
    assembled or unassembled) which, when assembled, shoots
    automatically by manipulation of the selector or removal of
    the disconnector is also a machine gun.

         "The Bureau has determined not to issue the ruling at
    this time...."

Reproduced in footnote 10, U.S. v. Staples, 971 F.2d 608 (CA10
1992), reversed on other grounds, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

    Rather than issue a formal ruling to this effect, and endanger
the "logic" of ATF Ruling 81-4, by acknowledging that the drop-in
auto sear can only really work to convert a firearm ATF also
considers to be a machine gun, ATF instead released this "open
letter" from Stephen E. Higgins, then director of ATF.  The open
letter was printed in the fall, 1986, Federal Firearm Licensee News
publication.  An edited version of this letter can be found in the
ATF "Yellow Book", "Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide",
ATF P 5300.4 (10-95) at page 91:

         "I want to bring to your attention possible Gun Control
    Act violations in which you could inadvertently become
    involved.

         "ATF has encountered various AR15-type assault rifles
    such as those manufactured by Colt, E.A. Company, SGW, Sendra
    and others, which have been assembled with internal components
    designed for use in M16 machineguns.  It has been found that
    the vast majority of these rifles which have been assembled
    with an M16 bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector and
    selector will fire automatically merely by manipulation of the
    selector or removal of the disconnector.  Many of these rifles
    using less than the five M16 parts listed above also will
    shoot automatically by manipulation of the selector or removal
    of the disconnector.

         "It must be pointed out that any weapon which shoots
    automatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading,
    by a single function of the trigger is a machinegun as defined
    in 26 U.S.C. Section 5845(b), the National Firearms Act (NFA).
    In addition, the definition of a machinegun also includes any
    combination of parts from which a machinegun may be assembled,
    if such parts are in possession or under the control of a
    person.  Any machinegun is subject to the NFA and the
    possession of an unregistered machinegun could subject the
    possessor to criminal prosecution.

         "Additionally, these rifles could pose a safety hazard in
    that they may fire automatically without the user being aware
    that the weapon will fire more than one shot with a single
    pull of the trigger.

         "In order to avoid possible violations of the NFA, M16
    hammers, triggers, disconnectors, selectors and bolt carriers
    must not be used in assembly of AR15-type semiautomatic
    rifles, unless the M16 parts have been modified to AR15 Model
    SP1 configuration.  Any AR15-type rifles which have been
    assembled with M16 internal components should have those parts
    removed and replaced with AR15 Model SP1 type parts.  These
    parts are available commercially or the M16 component may be
    modified to AR15 Model SP1 configuration.

         "It is important to note that any modification of the M16
    parts should only be attempted by fully qualified personnel.

         "On the following page are illustrations of AR15 Model
    SP1 component parts and the corresponding M16-type parts.
    Should you have any questions concerning AR15-type rifles with
    M16 parts, please contact your nearest ATF law enforcement
    office.  Our telephone numbers are listed in the United States
    Government section of your telephone directory under the
    United States Treasury Department."

    While ATF decided not to made a formal ruling to the effect
that an AR-15 type rifle with M-16 parts is a machine gun, they
can, almost certainly, get such a firearm to fire more than one
shot with a single pull of the trigger, and thus claim it is a
machine gun, on a case by case basis."

Note:  This is not law or regulation.  It is an "open letter" stating the BATF's interpretation of the law and regs.  IMO, it boils down to a question of fact - Can the BATF get an AR15 whose only M16 component is the bolt carrier to fire automatically when an AR15 with an AR15 bolt carrier would not fire autonatically?  If not, then, IMO, an M16 carrier in an AR15 is legal, regardelss of what Bushmaster and Colt do or say.

Bushmaster  won a law suite with the fact having m16 parts in the gun doesnt make it a fa. plus the law states if you have all parts that are need to go FA make it illegal. If they cant make it shoot full auto you cant get in trouble.

JUST MY OPINION

You should always research on your own the law I bet the NRA would gladly answer those question you have about putting that BC in you AR

Originally Posted By FNMI_Rifleman: I am wanting to put an M16 bolt carrier in my AR15, I would think I would get better reliability from a heavier bolt carrier. As long as i have no other m16 parts in my ar, would this be legal?

I advise against it,unless your gun is  registered NFA compliant.  ATF promulgates that any M16 part (bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, safety selector, sears) makes your gun a machinegun for prosecutorial purposes regardless of the fact that it takes more than 1 squeeze of the trigger to expel more than a single round.  There are those in here who strongly disagree with that rule, but are unwilling to stake their freedom on it.  In other words, they wouldn't mind it if you were the "test" case, but they are unwilling to test it themselves.  Don't do it.  It isn't worth the risk.

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: I advise against it,unless your gun is  registered NFA compliant.

AGNTSA

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: I advise against it,unless your gun is  registered NFA compliant. Not bad advice, but not necessary.  If your going to follow that advice though, how about giving me your full auto carrier Colt ships with their semi-auto rifles these days.  By the way, if the carrier were illegal and you threw it away, you would be guilty of destroying evidence. ATF promulgates that any M16 part (bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, safety selector, sears) makes your gun a machinegun for prosecutorial purposes regardless of the fact that it takes more than 1 squeeze of the trigger to expel more than a single round. Absolutely incorrect.  ATF only advises against using any full auto parts so that one does not accidentally complete a configuration which would allow full auto fire.  The definition has not changed - it must fire more than one round with one trigger action.  I challenge you to show evidence backing your claim here.  I am using the federal law book formally known as the green book.  Even letters of opinion only advise against it.  And please don't quote the Bushmaster statement, they were called on it, they admitted it was untrue, but they kept it in to CYA themselves in anycase.  What is said in a catalog is not law.  There are those in here who strongly disagree with that rule, but are unwilling to stake their freedom on it.  In other words, they wouldn't mind it if you were the "test" case, but they are unwilling to test it themselves.  Don't do it.  It isn't worth the risk. I'm afraid you are incorrect again.  I personally have at least two friends who have written the ATFE notifying them that they are using an M16 full auto carrier in their semi-auto AR-15's and do not own a registered M16 or SBR.  They are fully willing and stake their freedom on it.  So far, not even a call back after telling the ATFE directly in writing that they are doing so, just like thousands of others and many new Colt owners.

As usual, read the rules and regs for yourself and make your own decision.  I draw the line at spreading disinformation though.  Remember this though, thousands of people use the M16 carrier in their AR15's, (as I do and I say it here in writing - please feel free to send a copy of what I stated to the ATFE), and companies are now shipping AR15's with M16 carriers.  If ATFE started prosecuting, they would have thousands of people to go through and small companies like COLT before they would get to you.  It would also seem a shame that if they decided to, they didn't start decades ago when this issue was still the case way back when - but so far I know of know one successfully prosecuted for using an M16 carrier in an AR15 since this all began many years ago.  All the cases I know of where clear cases of rifles being fully converted illegally or having an unregistered device specifially designed to convert to full auto.

Again, I'll stake my freedom on this.  I own both an M16 and many AR-15's.  I have short barrelled uppers stored with my AR15's and I use M16 carriers in them.  Were I to dump the M16 and any SBRS, I would only get rid of my short barrels but continue to use the M16 carrier.  ATFE, please take me to court if you care.  I'll even write a letter stating all of the above as a couple of my other friends have done (with absolutely no response).

Originally Posted By AK_Mike: Originally Posted By lawdawg430: I advise against it, unless your gun is  registered NFA compliant. Not bad advice, but not necessary.  If your going to follow that advice though, how about giving me your full auto carrier Colt ships with their semi-auto rifles these days.  By the way, if the carrier were illegal and you threw it away, you would be guilty of destroying evidence. ATF promulgates that any M16 part (bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector, safety selector, sears) makes your gun a machinegun for prosecutorial purposes regardless of the fact that it takes more than 1 squeeze of the trigger to expel more than a single round. Absolutely incorrect.  ATF only advises against using any full auto parts so that one does not accidentally complete a configuration which would allow full auto fire.  The definition has not changed - it must fire more than one round with one trigger action.  I challenge you to show evidence backing your claim here.  I am using the federal law book formally known as the green book.  Even letters of opinion only advise against it.  And please don't quote the Bushmaster statement, they were called on it, they admitted it was untrue, but they kept it in to CYA themselves in any case.  What is said in a catalog is not law.  There are those in here who strongly disagree with that rule, but are unwilling to stake their freedom on it.  In other words, they wouldn't mind it if you were the "test" case, but they are unwilling to test it themselves.  Don't do it.  It isn't worth the risk. I'm afraid you are incorrect again.  I personally have at least two friends who have written the ATFE notifying them that they are using an M16 full auto carrier in their semi-auto AR-15's and do not own a registered M16 or SBR.  They are fully willing and stake their freedom on it.  So far, not even a call back after telling the ATFE directly in writing that they are doing so, just like thousands of others and many new Colt owners. As usual, read the rules and regs for yourself and make your own decision.  I draw the line at spreading disinformation though.  Remember this though, thousands of people use the M16 carrier in their AR15's, (as I do and I say it here in writing - please feel free to send a copy of what I stated to the ATFE), and companies are now shipping AR15's with M16 carriers.  If ATFE started prosecuting, they would have thousands of people to go through and small companies like COLT before they would get to you.  It would also seem a shame that if they decided to, they didn't start decades ago when this issue was still the case way back when - but so far I know of know one successfully prosecuted for using an M16 carrier in an AR15 since this all began many years ago.  All the cases I know of where clear cases of rifles being fully converted illegally or having an unregistered device specifically designed to convert to full auto. Again, I'll stake my freedom on this.  I own both an M16 and many AR-15's.  I have short barrelled uppers stored with my AR15's and I use M16 carriers in them.  Were I to dump the M16 and any SBRS, I would only get rid of my short barrels but continue to use the M16 carrier.  ATFE, please take me to court if you care.  I'll even write a letter stating all of the above as a couple of my other friends have done (with absolutely no response).

I am not going to make ATF's case or argue it for them, or report you for your admission.  I am stating better safe than sorry, if the governing body advises against it, it's a pretty good indication of what to do.  

One or two of these parts can give you "slam fires" and that is with one squeeze and that is a machine gun.

Via the light**** l*nk, you don't use any m16 parts to go full auto and that is a machine gun.

Also, it has been found to be illegal to own these full-auto parts in conjunction with a legal AR15, it is presumed intent.  Proximity is an issue.

Why is it I cannot buy a m4 trigger pack without showing my proof of llc, if it's not illegal?

The bottom line is when ATF or the Atty General release an opinion or declaration stating full auto parts are legal to use in semi auto AR's, then I will advise it is safe to do.  The ambiguity and misinformation is a result of the cluster fuck caused by them not me.

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: Originally Posted By lawdawg430: Originally Posted By AK_Mike: SNIP I am not going to make ATF's case or argue it for them, or report you for your admission.  I am stating better safe than sorry, if the governing body advises against it, it's a pretty good indication of what to do.   One or two of these parts can give you "slam fires" and that is with one squeeze and that is a machine gun. Via the light**** l*nk, you don't use any m16 parts to go full auto and that is a machine gun. Also, it has been found to be illegal to own these full-auto parts in conjunction with a legal AR15, it is presumed intent.  Proximity is an issue. Why is it I cannot buy a m4 trigger pack without showing my proof of llc, if it's not illegal? The bottom line is when ATF or the Atty General release an opinion or declaration stating full auto parts are legal to use in semi auto AR's, then I will advise it is safe to do.  The ambiguity and misinformation is a result of the cluster fuck caused by them not me. Lawdog, you didn't answer my question; I'll do it for you.  The answer is there is no such "promulgation".  If you read this entire thread, you'll clearly understand ATF's position, which believe it or not is somewhat consistant. It is this:  Like you, me and most everyone else, the "advice" is not to "store" or "stockpile" F/A parts.  Not because it is "illegal" to possess them, but because you could accidently accumulate enough to possess a FA weapon constructively.  They never, ONCE, make a statement that having even one part is illegal. Why is it I cannot buy a m4 trigger pack without showing my proof of llc, if it's not illegal? This is a serious question?   Don't confuse being cautious with legalities. Also, it has been found to be illegal to own these full-auto parts in conjunction with a legal AR15, it is presumed intent.  Proximity is an issue. Even if you wanted to, you could not find me a cite where any court "found" that having one part alone, not capable of conversion, along with an AR was "constructive possession."

I didn't say one part alone.  There are cases where "parts" and and an AR15 were illegal.

Oh, and that is a serious question.  Why can't I buy those parts without showing proof?

You state they never say it is illegal, but they do advise against it.  Have they ever claimed it to be legal?

Lawdog, you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to this discussion.

Read the law, Find where the LAW says possession of an M-16 carrier, or any other part, is illegal. Not an opinion statement from the tech branch, actual LAW.

"Actually, YES, they have at least orally and in a letter to Chen. Read this entire thread. Why don't you call the tech branch right now and ask them. I bet if you get someone on the phone, pose the question correctly ("one B/C in an AR not capable of rendering the AR F/A"), you'd get an answer."

Objection:  Hearsay

Originally Posted By Hydguy: Lawdog, you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to this discussion. Read the law, Find where the LAW says possession of an M-16 carrier, or any other part, is illegal. Not an opinion statement from the tech branch, actual LAW.

Oh, I have some inkling of an idea as to what we are talking about, and since when has the letter of the law been followed by any administrative body Ace? NTM letter of the law is subject to interpretation, distinction, and a point of advocacy, or a grey area.  The question posed was M16 bolt in AR15?  I advised against it.  It serves no purpose anyway.  I based it on words in writing by the BATF and Bushmaster and case law I have read.  

I mean you are talking about risking your freedom and liberty for what?  To use an M16 bolt carrier in place of an AR15's?  Why risk it and go against sound advice?  Just to be grandiose?  

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: Originally Posted By Hydguy: Lawdog, you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to this discussion. Read the law, Find where the LAW says possession of an M-16 carrier, or any other part, is illegal. Not an opinion statement from the tech branch, actual LAW. Oh, I have some inkling of an idea as to what we are talking about, and since when has the letter of the law been followed by any administrative body Ace? NTM letter of the law is subject to interpretation, distinction, and a point of advocacy, or a grey area.  The question posed was M16 bolt in AR15?  I advised against it.  It serves no purpose anyway.  I based it on words in writing by the BATF and Bushmaster and case law I have read.   I mean you are talking about risking your freedom and liberty for what?  To use an M16 bolt carrier in place of an AR15's?  Why risk it and go against sound advice?  Just to be grandiose?

Face it Lawdog, you are just to stubborn to admit that there is no LAW that makes it illegal to use an M-16 bolt carrier in an AR-15. If there were, you would have presented it.

ETA: I'm NOT a lawyer, and even I can read the laws regarding MG's. Your position is based on opinion and what internet commandos have spouted.

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: I based it on words in writing by the BATF and Bushmaster and case law I have read.

Sig line stuff there.  Are you the guy that put Bushmaster and expert in the same sentence last week?  That was a hoot.

Originally Posted By FALARAK: Originally Posted By Hydguy: Face it Lawdog, you are just to stubborn to admit that there is no LAW that makes it illegal to use an M-16 bolt carrier in an AR-15. No - he has already delivered the facts... did you guys miss that? Originally Posted By lawdawg430: You can quote me on this, I am a lawyer, it is ILLEGAL to have an M16 bolt carrier in your rifle without the class iii permit, whether you know it is in there or not. I bought an upper at auction and the bolt it came with was M16- i destroyed it. The law clearly states that if you have any 1 M16 part (trigger, disconnector, safety selector, bolt carrier, hammer) any 1 of these in your gun MAKES YOUR GUN A MACHINE GUN for all intents and purposes regardless of the rate of actual fire. ALSO, it is a crime to posses any M16 parts in conjunction with AR15 ownership, it is assumed you will use those parts to make a machine gun and the penalties for any violation are severe. 10 years plus 250 thosand dollar fine is common. lawdawg430

D'oh!!

I forgot that Lawdog was an NFA lawyer and the ATF lawyer....

Thought it was the same guy:

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: Don't worry, you are not my client.  Nobody in this thread is, and none of this is legal advice, just an honest interpretation of the definition promulgated and enforced by the ATF and agreed upon by the experts such as Bushmaster.  An M16 bolt carrier will make a machine gun. Why chance it?  Foolish.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=314732&page=2

This is my favorite part:

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: ........... and agreed upon by the experts such as Bushmaster.

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: Originally Posted By lawdawg430: Originally Posted By Hydguy: Lawdog, you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to this discussion. Read the law, Find where the LAW says possession of an M-16 carrier, or any other part, is illegal. Not an opinion statement from the tech branch, actual LAW. Oh, I have some inkling of an idea as to what we are talking about, and since when has the letter of the law been followed by any administrative body Ace? NTM letter of the law is subject to interpretation, distinction, and a point of advocacy, or a grey area.  The question posed was M16 bolt in AR15?  I advised against it.  It serves no purpose anyway.  I based it on words in writing by the BATF and Bushmaster and case law I have read.   I mean you are talking about risking your freedom and liberty for what?  To use an M16 bolt carrier in place of an AR15's?  Why risk it and go against sound advice?  Just to be grandiose?   No he's right, you really don't know jack about this subject. "Words written by the BATF":  Please show us the words that relate to this topic.  Keep in mind this discussion wasn't spawned by a request for "advice", the question was whether it is "LEGAL" or not.  There's a huge difference - obviously lost on you. Have you even read the letter to Chen?   "Bushmaster":  You're basing your position on a disclaimer by BUSHMASTER!?     "Case law I've read":  Bullshit.  You have not read jackshit that bolsters your opinion on this matter.  You cannot cite one case that would stand for the proposition that an M16 BC in an AR is illegal. Please educate us.

I'd school you, but I would rather just agree to disagree dear colleague.  Call it a professional courtesy, since it is clear you want to resort to disrespect and who knows "jackshit" comments, namecalling.  I will not disrespect this forum with a flame war or pissing match versus fellow members over a subject that is clearly a point of advocacy.  Honestly, I have a lot to offer on this topic, but I won't waste it on "educating" the likes of you.  

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: Originally Posted By Ekie: Thought it was the same guy: Originally Posted By lawdawg430: Don't worry, you are not my client.  Nobody in this thread is, and none of this is legal advice, just an honest interpretation of the definition promulgated and enforced by the ATF and agreed upon by the experts such as Bushmaster.  An M16 bolt carrier will make a machine gun. Why chance it?  Foolish. www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=314732&page=2 This is my favorite part: Originally Posted By lawdawg430: ........... and agreed upon by the experts such as Bushmaster. Wow, I wish I had that link before.  I could have  just linked his ass-kicking in that thread and left him to twist on his own.  Our comments about what he said in this thread seem like overkill in light of the ignorant statements made in that thread. I actually feel kind of bad now.   I also seriously doubt this guy is a lawyer.

Please don’t feel badly.    

When a tool needs thumped, we depend upon you to do it.    

I base my decisions upon the opinions of experts like you. The waters must not be permitted to be muddied.  

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: Originally Posted By lawdawg430: Originally Posted By Hydguy: Lawdog, you have no clue what you are talking about in regards to this discussion. Read the law, Find where the LAW says possession of an M-16 carrier, or any other part, is illegal. Not an opinion statement from the tech branch, actual LAW. Oh, I have some inkling of an idea as to what we are talking about, and since when has the letter of the law been followed by any administrative body Ace? NTM letter of the law is subject to interpretation, distinction, and a point of advocacy, or a grey area.  The question posed was M16 bolt in AR15?  I advised against it.  It serves no purpose anyway.  I based it on words in writing by the BATF and Bushmaster and case law I have read.   I mean you are talking about risking your freedom and liberty for what?  To use an M16 bolt carrier in place of an AR15's?  Why risk it and go against sound advice?  Just to be grandiose?   No he's right, you really don't know jack about this subject. "Words written by the BATF":  Please show us the words that relate to this topic.  Keep in mind this discussion wasn't spawned by a request for "advice", the question was whether it is "LEGAL" or not.  There's a huge difference - obviously lost on you. Have you even read the letter to Chen?   "Bushmaster":  You're basing your position on a disclaimer by BUSHMASTER!?     "Case law I've read":  Bullshit.  You have not read jackshit that bolsters your opinion on this matter.  You cannot cite one case that would stand for the proposition that an M16 BC in an AR is illegal. Please educate us. I'd school you, but I would rather just agree to disagree dear colleague.  Call it a professional courtesy, since it is clear you want to resort to disrespect and who knows "jackshit" comments, namecalling.  I will not disrespect this forum with a flame war or pissing match versus fellow members over a subject that is clearly a point of advocacy.  Honestly, I have a lot to offer on this topic, but I won't waste it on "educating" the likes of you.

Since you don't want to 'school' 'colleagues', please feel free to 'school' this 'layman'.

Or don't you want to chance being 'schooled' yourself?