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.

Show me your bar card and I'll show you mine.   I doubt you are licensed or practicing.

All I advise is to try and keep fellows out of trouble, your spin on the topic risks getting people into trouble.  Surprising for a staff m. to play fast and loose and surprising your tone and demeanor to a team member.

We are not colleagues, i'd kick your ass in or on the court.  Wannabe.

Put your money where your mouth is,,,I bet I can find the cases where men have gone to jail for possessing M16 parts in conjunction with an AR15.

..thought so.  We are talking about a single part here.  Bolt carrier.  You say its legal to posses and own even installed in an AR.  Yet all the name dealers won't sell one to John Q Public without a tax stamp or other NFA type proof and Bushmaster advises that the ATF says even one M16 part makes your gun illegal as far as they are concerned.  You advise this is bullshit, but it is in their catalogues still today.  Must be printed lies, heh, counsel.  You don't even know the exceptions to the hearsay rule, lol, much less the rule against perpetuities.  Haha.

Bet me, I'll out-lawyer you anyday.    Don't tell me I don't know shit or I am not a lawyer when I worked pretty damn hard to earn the title.  Hell, I won a Texas Supreme Court Case 2 years out of law school.  Have you even argued before the Supreme Court?

That's all I'll say and I apologize to the other members who are not your "yes" boys for my having to set this turkey straight.  

Please don't waste more billable hours either with tearing apart this thread.  It serves no purpose.  I had to defend myself.  Case closed.

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: 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. Show me your bar card and I'll show you mine.   I doubt you are licensed or practicing. All I advise is to try and keep fellows out of trouble, your spin on the topic risks getting people into trouble.  Surprising for a staff m. to play fast and loose and surprising your tone and demeanor to a team member. We are not colleagues, i'd kick your ass in or on the court.  Wannabe. Put your money where your mouth is,,,I bet I can find the cases where men have gone to jail for possessing M16 parts in conjunction with an AR15. ..thought so.  We are talking about a single part here.  Bolt carrier.  You say its legal to posses and own even installed in an AR.  Yet all the name dealers won't sell one to John Q Public without a tax stamp or other NFA type proof and Bushmaster advises that the ATF says even one M16 part makes your gun illegal as far as they are concerned.  You advise this is bullshit, but it is in their catalogues still today.  Must be printed lies, heh, counsel.  You don't even know the exceptions to the hearsay rule, lol, much less the rule against perpetuities.  Haha. Bet me, I'll out-lawyer you anyday.    Don't tell me I don't know shit or I am not a lawyer when I worked pretty damn hard to earn the title.  Hell, I won a Texas Supreme Court Case 2 years out of law school.  Have you even argued before the Supreme Court? That's all I'll say and I apologize to the other members who are not your "yes" boys for my having to set this turkey straight.   Please don't waste more billable hours either with tearing apart this thread.  It serves no purpose.  I had to defend myself.  Case closed.

Okay big guy, name me 3 dealers that sell DIREcT TO THE PUBLIC other than Bushmaster that won't sell a M-16 bolt to someone (and Colt doesn't count, as they barely count anymore)
And since you have access to supposed cases where people have been convicted of possession of an unregistered MG for possession of ONLY a M-16 bolt carrier, post the cases.

lawdawg430,

Give me some reported cases that back up your position.

I have my Lexis and Westlaw logins ready.

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: Lawdawg, you are either MMR or very clever and having some fun with us. No one with a law degree AND who passed any bar would say this: 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. You can't even read a one paragraph federal code section.  That is a true shame if you really are a JD. 21 USC 5845(b) clearly states no such thing.  It states: 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. Nor would a non-caveman lawyer say this: 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. ATF has never taken such a position, ever. From BATFE's 2-14-05 letter to Chen regarding the installation of M16 B/C's in Colt ARs: 903050:RV 3311/2005-167 www.atf.gov Mr. Carlton S. Chen We can only inform you that if this installation were to create a firearm that fires automatically, it would be a machinegun as defined; conversely, if it did not result in the production of a weapon that shoots automatically, it would be lawful to posses and make. We thank you for your inquiry and trust the foregoing has been responsive. Sincerely yours, [signed] Sterling Nixon Chief, Firearms Technology Branch The former Chief seems to agree with us.  You can't even read a letter in this very thread that refutes your own distorted view of an otherwise clear code section and the position of BATFE.  I even asked you twice to go read it, but you either are too lazy or you lack the grey matter to do even remedial research. And the pies d resistance, no one, and I mean NO ONE, with half a legal brain would ever say this: . . .and agreed upon by the experts such as Bushmaster. I've been practicing for 16 years, am licensed in the US Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit (not a user-friendly place), Virginia and Hawaii.  I've represented numerous members on this board and the board itself when we had troubles with Colt (I dealt directly with Carlton Chen).  I am in court everyday. You, on the other hand, have done nothing but show your ass in this and other threads when it comes to legal matters.   Here's the deal Lawdawg, despite the entertainment value of kicking your cyber ass all over this thread, I really do despise misinformation.  That is the reason this thread is tacked.  You are so irresponsible in this regard that I am banning you from this thread.  The amusement is not worth the potential confusion to folks who really want to learn.  Do not post in it again.  Go away and play wannabe lawyer somewhere else.   To any noobs:  Please ignore this guy's "advice" and remember to do your own research.  Don't rely on me or anyone else.  Take what we say with a grain of salt and do the research yourself.

+1 Well done.  FWIW I'm a licensed attorney, too.  Maybe we should have an ARFCOM attorney poll on the subject.

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: Via the light**** l*nk, you don't use any m16 parts to go full auto and that is a machine gun.

That is absolutely correct, and it is covered under the law.  That (Lightning Link) is a device designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun so that along with a DIAS (Drop in Autosear) must be registered as an MG in and of itself.  These are not stock parts or replacement parts and are not treated the same.  The M16 carrier is a stock replacement part and in and of itself cannot make the rifle go full auto.

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: The question posed was M16 bolt in AR15? I advised against it. It serves no purpose anyway.

Confusing.  If you are talking about the BOLT, there is no such thing as an M16 bolt versus an AR-15 bolt, they are the same part.  If you are talking about the Carrier, then you are incorrect.  The purpose is to use a carrier of the weight designed to run in the system.  The heavier the carrier, the more capable it is of stripping the round and going into battery.  It's a reliability issue.  The lighter the carrier, the less inertia it has and so becomes more sensitive to friction from metal contact, fouling, magazine spring pressure on the cartridge, etc.

ETA:  As an option to those who still fear, buy a nice Young/LBC carrier.  Not only are they equal in weight to the M16 carrier (and may be the only one), but are designed with enhancements.  They are pricey but a really good.

I've got a question since I'm not a lawyer (but I can read).  Bushmaster was confronted on this issue and said they would think about retracting the erroneous statement in their catalog, but in the end choose to cover their asses and leave it in.  They are claiming a Federal law falsely.  Is there nothing that can be done to stop them from printing the lie short of suing them?  They continue to cause generations of misinformation.

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: .  It is beyond silly that they keep that statement going.

It helps to show which 'lawyers' understand the actual gun laws!!

    According to the Fall Edition 1986 FFL Newsletter, Public Laws 99-308 and 99-360 amend the GCA 1968 and the NFA, effective 11-19-86:
'The definition of a machinegun includes any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun."
"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 semi-automatic 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...."

HydGuy,
  I noticed your 231 logo; very nice!  Are you stoill there? I wish I could have stayed there longer.  I'm at 223 now.  Come find me in the S-2 if you want to talk guns one day!

Originally Posted By Devildog1068A1:     According to the Fall Edition 1986 FFL Newsletter, Public Laws 99-308 and 99-360 amend the GCA 1968 and the NFA, effective 11-19-86: 'The definition of a machinegun includes any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun." "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 semi-automatic 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...."

www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/gen_info.pdf


2. INFORMATION CONCERNING
AR-15 TYPE RIFLES
ATF has encountered various AR-15
type assault rifles such as those manufactured
by Colt, E.A. Company, SGW,
Sendra and others, which have been
assembled with fire control components
designed for use in M16 machineguns.
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 5 M16
parts listed above also will shoot automatically
by manipulation of the selector
or removal of the disconnector.
Any weapon which shoots automatically
more than 1 shot without manual
reloading, by a single function of the
trigger, is a machinegun as defined in
26 U.S.C. 5845(b), the National Firearms
Act (NFA). 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. An AR-15 type assault rifle
which fires more than 1 shot by a single
function of the trigger is a machinegun
under the NFA. 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 1
shot with a single pull of the trigger.
In order to avoid violations of the
NFA, M16 hammers, triggers, disconnectors,
selectors and bolt carriers must
not be used in assembly of AR-15 type
semiautomatic rifles, unless the M16
parts have been modified to AR-15
Model SP1 configuration. Any AR-15
type rifles which have been assembled
with M16 internal components should
have those parts removed and replaced
with AR-15 Model SP1 type parts which
are available commercially. The M16
components also may be modified to
AR-15 Model SP1 configuration.
It is important to note that any modification
of the M16 parts should be attempted
by fully qualified personnel
only.
Should you have any questions concerning
AR-15 type rifles with M16
parts, please contact your nearest ATF
office. A list of ATF field offices is on
page 198 of this publication.

I just passed on information from the ATF web site with a link for those that are curious.

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: I am stating better safe than sorry, if the governing body advises against it, it's a pretty good indication of what to do.

Thank Christ that people with opinions like this weren't taking action on our behalf in 1776.

Originally Posted By lawdawg430: ...if the governing body advises against it, it's a pretty good indication of what to do.

Correct.

Originally Posted By jcp: www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/gen_info.pdf 2. INFORMATION CONCERNING AR-15 TYPE RIFLES ATF has encountered various AR-15 type assault rifles such as those manufactured by Colt, E.A. Company, SGW, Sendra and others, which have been assembled with fire control components designed for use in M16 machineguns. 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 5 M16 parts listed above also will shoot automatically by manipulation of the selector or removal of the disconnector. Any weapon which shoots automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, is a machinegun as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), the National Firearms Act (NFA). 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. An AR-15 type assault rifle which fires more than 1 shot by a single function of the trigger is a machinegun under the NFA. 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 1 shot with a single pull of the trigger. In order to avoid violations of the NFA, M16 hammers, triggers, disconnectors, selectors and bolt carriers must not be used in assembly of AR-15 type semiautomatic rifles, unless the M16 parts have been modified to AR-15 Model SP1 configuration. Any AR-15 type rifles which have been assembled with M16 internal components should have those parts removed and replaced with AR-15 Model SP1 type parts which are available commercially. The M16 components also may be modified to AR-15 Model SP1 configuration. It is important to note that any modification of the M16 parts should be attempted by fully qualified personnel only. Should you have any questions concerning AR-15 type rifles with M16 parts, please contact your nearest ATF office. A list of ATF field offices is on page 198 of this publication.

I think most of us are well aware of this letter (it is not even an ATF regulation).

A bolt carrier alone will not make your AR15 into a machinegun.  If you ask the ATF, they'll tell you have an M16 bolt carrier, but no other M16 fire control parts in your possession, they may tell you that you should replace the M16 carrier with an AR15 carrier, but you're not going to get busted if you don't.  The fact is, if the M16 carrier is the only M16 fire control component you have, then you don't have an MG.

Jesus, if owning an M16 bolt carrier was illegal.

LMT would have been shut down, for sending me one with a Semi-Auto lower.

I can't even begin to name how many people have M16 bolt carriers in their LEGAL semi-auto AR-15.

ETA: Also aren't all Colts shipped with M16 carriers?

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be. Per my recent contact with Bushmaster in regards to the exact question posted earlier in this thread. The reply goes as such and this is not a quote, just my shortened version of our phone conversation. Bushmasters stance on M16 parts as other manufacters as well is due soley to the fact that our society is so sue happy and rather that having the possiblility of some dishonest individuals commit a felony and then blame the manufacture, the movies made me do it, videos game made me do it, they sold me the parts so it's really their fault.... So Bushmaster can make the blanket statement that they do not sell M16 parts without a copy of the appropriate documents, knowing full well that this is not the official stance of the BTAF but merely Bushmasters policy.

My opinion on the matter is if you are not willing to do the research by contacting the appropriate legal goverment entities, then you have no buisness trying to obtain the items in question.

My experiences and I will repeat my experiances with BTAF is you may own and have installed as many M16 parts in your rifle you want as long as........

The rifle with the total combination of parts does not fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger.

Here are the exceptions to this rule. These are the only parts soley described by BTAF as being machine gun parts and require registration. These are also the only parts that carry a individual serial number and it is for this exact reason.

1. The reciever is not machined to accept a auto sear, as this is now a conversion part that cannot be returened to it's original state. Considered to be a machine gun and requires a tax stamp.

2. Lighting link (LL or RLL). This is a conversion part that is soley designed to produce automatic fire. Considered to be a machine gun and requires a tax stamp.

3. Drop is auto sear (DIAS or RDIAS). This is a conversion part designed soley to produce automatic fire for recievers not machined to accept a USGI auto sear in conjunction with a compete M16 fire control group. Considered to be a machine gun and requires a tax stamp.

Unregistered possesion of any of the above mentioned parts in any number assembled or dissassembled is considered by BTAF to be in possesion of a unregistered machine gun.

The only M16 fire control part that I do not have complete information on regarding legal ownershp on yet is a USGI auto sear. The sear is a stock replacement part and is not serial numbered and will not fit a unmachined receiver without modification, there for is not a conversion part. It is though designed to provide full automatic fire and that is where the gray area lies.

This is as I stated above and will restate my dealing with the legalities of M16 parts ownership. If in doubt contact your legal represenative and find out for your self. If you find it to be not worth the effort, then don't buy the parts.

David

Yes I know, that is why I contacted BTAF myself for my own clarity on the subject rather than rely on just what a manufacture says. I was just trying to politely state this without bashing anyone and share my corospondances as to what BTAF told me as to what is legal and what is not.

David

Originally Posted By DRandi: Yes I know, that is why I contacted BTAF myself for my own clarity on the subject rather than rely on just what a manufacture says. I was just trying to politely state this without bashing anyone and share my corospondances as to what BTAF told me as to what is legal and what is not. David

And the letter you got was taking into consideration the use of ALL the M-16 parts, or removing the disconnector, which will make an AR-15 slamfire no matter WHAT parts are in it, or manipulating the controls in a manner that they were not designeds to be used.

The LAW is clear. you can have as many parts as you want in the gun AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T FIRE MORE THAN ONE ROUND PER COMPLETE TRIGGER PULL.

"And the letter you got was taking into consideration the use of ALL the M-16 parts, or removing the disconnector, which will make an AR-15 slamfire no matter WHAT parts are in it, or manipulating the controls in a manner that they were not designeds to be used."

I never stated anything about removal or manuplation of parts.

"The LAW is clear. you can have as many parts as you want in the gun AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T FIRE MORE THAN ONE ROUND PER COMPLETE TRIGGER PULL."

That is exactly what I said two posts above.



edit puntuation

A little history behind the letter is helpful:

"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:

From Bardwell's site - see my post on page 15.

Originally Posted By m60308nato: First of all it IS illegal to have any m16 part in your AR15 end of story. That's why you need a tax stamp (form4) or you have to be law enforcement or military to EVEN BUY THESE PARTS FROM A FACTORY. Sure you can buy them on auction's but that doesn't make it legal for you to stick it in your AR15, or to even own if you have an ar15. ANY M16 PART in your AR15 makes it illegal. M16 parts can be the trigger, selector, hammer, hammer spring, 2 disconnects, the sear, sear pin, and the bolt carrier. also the 3 shot burst wheel thats on the hammer pin.(forgot what it's called) the only way I can see you getting away with having an m16 bolt carrier in your weapon is if your gun is an early SP1 and it came with one in it. Then you can cry I didn't know all you want but Ignorance of the law is no excuse you can still be prosecuted.

I know this post is a few years old but I found myself laughing uncontrollably from the highlighted portion!  I have a box of hammer springs as spares.  As per his statement I have like 20 machineguns if a hammer spring is an M16?

My AR bought in 1996 from Armalite came with a M16 bolt carrier.  My old shooting buddies LMT came with a M16 bolt carrier.

EVERY manufacturer I called has said they would sell me an M16 bolt carrier if I had the money, if I wanted to buy the conversion kit(or all the parts to convert and AR to a M16) I needed to send them my F4 for a RR or my SOT.  But everyone would sell the carrier.

I have been thinking about installing a few M16 carriers in my AR SBR upper so I can shoot them on my friends M16.

Thanks for the sound advice Steve-In-VA.

-TS

Well - I did it - I finally finished reading this entire thread and all it's (many) associated links...

FALARAK I think said it best when he stated that he preferred suicide to any further ressurection of this topic.

It's taken me HOURS (wading through trolls, tags, repeated-posts, mis-quotes, insults, and off-topic comments and querries) only to realize that this post's two main topics:

-Uses for the M16 carrier-,

and

-The legality of the carriers' SOLITARY component use-

were answered back within the first five pages...

I realize that it will take an act of Congress for the second topic to ever finally meet the grave, But might I at least recommend that this thread be locked till then (so as to prevent any further dilution (and further constipation) of this thread and it's afore-mentioned topics?

Please Steve...Lock this thread to save the time (and sanity) of future readers.

Thank you.

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: Originally Posted By FlDiveCop71: Please Steve...Lock this thread to save the time (and sanity) of future readers. Thank you. While I appreciate where you are coming from, I think I'll leave it unlocked.

Had to try... and Thank's again - (for staying on top of things...among other reasons )

BTW - Did the BATFE ever respond (difinatively or otherwise) to your Second Letter? If they did - I somehow missed it...

Thanks again,

Mike

Someone with a manuf. license send one to the tech branch with a 16 carrier in it and ask for a letter to see if it is or is not a machine gun. Letter should be good for a least a couple days when it comes back before they change their minds either way.
Every time I look at my open bolt semi Mac in the safe I realize something can be two things at once depending on the day it was made.

Two items:

There was that gentleman in PA about 15 years ago with some FA parts in his AR--trigger group, IIRC.  ATF's case was, "When we filed down the sear and used "sensitive primer ammunition" we could get it to double about one time in ten."

IIRC, the judge ordered them out of his courtroom and to return the gentleman's weapon.  But it took him several months and much aggravation to get it back.

I used to own a preban receiver which I got cheap (in IL).  No nubs above the fire selector, and a "A" stamped on it in the auto position.  

A moron had been attempting to make an illegal conversion, and thought the nubs were somehow blocks for the selector.  Then he stamped it "A" to announce publicly it was an illegal conversion.  Then he gave up and sold it to a friend of mine.

ATF came to my friend's house, presented a warrant, asked to see the weapons my friend had purchased from this idiot.  One of them was this butchered lower, which contained ALL the M16 parts except a sear and relevant hole.

They examined the weapon, agreed it was not full auto, looked at the handwritten receipt, told my friend he was free to do anything he wished with the weapons except transfer them back to the seller, who was likely soon to not be an eligible possessor (apparently but unsaid having violated various other statutes).

Friend sold me the pre-ban lower, parts and 3 position aluminum stock for $120 in 1995.  I sold the stock for $120, swapped the M16 trigger group to a dealer for an AR group.  In 2002 I sold the lower for $600 and effectively built my daughter's AR for free (plus optics).

Either the agents didn't ID the M16 trigger group, or it was legal.

I don't intend to test the theory myself.

Here is the replacement rifle (which some of you have seen before):

height=8

Originally Posted By MikeWilliamson: ATF came to my friend's house, presented a warrant, asked to see the weapons my friend had purchased from this idiot.  One of them was this butchered lower, which contained ALL the M16 parts except a sear and relevant hole. ... Either the agents didn't ID the M16 trigger group, or it was legal.

If it had all the parts (which would be a combination of parts to convert) or if it fired FA with any of the parts installed then it would be an unregistered MG. ATF has recommended that you don't put any of the FA parts in a gun that originally was made with SA parts so there wouldn't be any "misunderstandings."

Originally Posted By Cal556: If it had all the parts (which would be a combination of parts to convert) or if it fired FA with any of the parts installed then it would be an unregistered MG. ATF has recommended that you don't put any of the FA parts in a gun that originally was made with SA parts so there wouldn't be any "misunderstandings."

At that point it was just a lower.  But I stripped the parts at once and sold it later anyway.  Better safe than sorry.

Where did you get the pink stuff on your girls weapon? I have a 15 month old girl and want to build her one.

Originally Posted By ferretrodeo: Where did you get the pink stuff on your girls weapon? I have a 15 month old girl and want to build her one.

I'm a dealer for Cavalry Arms, but they're currently not producing pink.  I have red, blue, yellow, coyote brown, OD, black and purple, though.

I just needed to cap off getting through this entire thread... ugh.

Oh, and for anyone who just jumps to the end... [SPOILER ALERT]

It is LEGAL, but there isn't any particularly grand reason to go out and buy one to put in your AR.

I feel like I just spoiled the ending of the latest Harry Potter book.

There is a grand reason for some shooters.  Increased reliability.  When your life could be on the line, and for some sport shooters - that seems plenty grand to me.

Wow this was a long one.  Thanks Steve for your info!

I think anyone that posts anything other than NEW documentation or law should be majorly chastised.  I have seen the same crap repeated fifty times by people that did not read the entire thread first.  

I think now we can all agree:

1. This thread is only about 1 topic: Is it legal to install a M16 Bolt Carrier (with absolutely no other M16 parts) in an AR15?  This is NOT a topic about LL, DIAS or any other parts.  dont even mention them because they are off the subject!  It is NOT about conversions or anything else!

2.  Installing a M16 Bolt Carrier into an AR15 is technically legal and there is no specific citing of law that says otherwise.

3.  Installation of a M16 Bolt Carrier into an AR15 is not RECOMMENDED by BATF, but is also not illegal

4.  Each individual has their own right to decide weather or not they need one, or should put one in their AR15.

5.  Steve-in-VA was accurate in his statements.  technically legal...not advisable.

SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK!

Also... I had inadvertantly started a thread with the same topic (not knowing this novel existed) here: M16 Bolt Carrier in an AR15?????    you can read it if you like but i think all new posts should stay here.

im goin to bed...it was a long read to get here.

Originally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: Wow this was a long one.  Thanks Steve for your info! I think anyone that posts anything other than NEW documentation or law should be majorly chastised.  I have seen the same crap repeated fifty times by people that did not read the entire thread first.   I think now we can all agree: 1. This thread is only about 1 topic: Is it legal to install a M16 Bolt Carrier (with absolutely no other M16 parts) in an AR15?  This is NOT a topic about LL, DIAS or any other parts.  dont even mention them because they are off the subject!  It is NOT about conversions or anything else! 2.  Installing a M16 Bolt Carrier into an AR15 is technically legal and there is no specific citing of law that says otherwise. 3.  Installation of a M16 Bolt Carrier into an AR15 is not RECOMMENDED by BATF, but is also not illegal 4.  Each individual has their own right to decide weather or not they need one, or should put one in their AR15. 5.  Steve-in-VA was accurate in his statements.  technically legal...not advisable. SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK! Also... I had inadvertantly started a thread with the same topic (not knowing this novel existed) here: M16 Bolt Carrier in an AR15?????    you can read it if you like but i think all new posts should stay here. im goin to bed...it was a long read to get here.

\

Wow... restating the obvious.

And by the way, it is either legal or not. There is no "technically". The written law clearly does not make it illegal to use a M16 bolt carrier, or other M-16 parts, in the AR-15, so long as it only fires once per pull of the trigger.

Hey I agree! As per the law is written it is legal!  I put "technically" to emphasize the fact that even though it is legal, it is STILL subject to interpretation by law enforcement and legislative parties.

cmon Hydguy!  Please dont look to pick apart my statement for no other reason than to keep this thread going.  I beleive that I have stated pretty simply (and yet eloquently) the facts on this issue where I believe that we can all agree on.  Remember that all laws have been subject to interpretation to not only the literal wording but also the "spirit of the law" and I believe that all of the attorneys on here should agree on that.  Besides the absence of a law is very different from a specific exclusion from the law.

Now lets keep this thread just factual in the future.  ie: Documents, Facts, new legal updates...  It is already too long to sift through the gossip and petty differences just to read some facts.

PLEASE ONLY POST IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO BRING TO LIGHT ON THIS TOPIC.

height=8

Originally Posted By Hydguy: height=8 Originally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: Wow this was a long one.  Thanks Steve for your info! I think anyone that posts anything other than NEW documentation or law should be majorly chastised.  I have seen the same crap repeated fifty times by people that did not read the entire thread first.   I think now we can all agree: 1. This thread is only about 1 topic: Is it legal to install a M16 Bolt Carrier (with absolutely no other M16 parts) in an AR15?  This is NOT a topic about LL, DIAS or any other parts.  dont even mention them because they are off the subject!  It is NOT about conversions or anything else! 2.  Installing a M16 Bolt Carrier into an AR15 is technically legal and there is no specific citing of law that says otherwise. 3.  Installation of a M16 Bolt Carrier into an AR15 is not RECOMMENDED by BATF, but is also not illegal 4.  Each individual has their own right to decide weather or not they need one, or should put one in their AR15. 5.  Steve-in-VA was accurate in his statements.  technically legal...not advisable. SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK! Also... I had inadvertantly started a thread with the same topic (not knowing this novel existed) here: M16 Bolt Carrier in an AR15?????    you can read it if you like but i think all new posts should stay here. im goin to bed...it was a long read to get here. \ Wow... restating the obvious. And by the way, it is either legal or not. There is no "technically". The written law clearly does not make it illegal to use a M16 bolt carrier, or other M-16 parts, in the AR-15, so long as it only fires once per pull of the trigger.

Originally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: PLEASE ONLY POST IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO BRING TO LIGHT ON THIS TOPIC.

Those who live in glass houses.....  

ok so i threw a few stones... but you have to admit I am right.   How can we get my statment to a vote?  can there be a voting thread or can someone respond here weather they agree with me?

Originally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: ok so i threw a few stones... but you have to admit I am right.   How can we get my statment to a vote?  can there be a voting thread or can someone respond here weather they agree with me?

What have you said that hasn't been said in the prior 17 pages? I really don't see a point in a vote. No one's vote counts. The only thing that matters is if more than one round is fired per operation of the trigger.

Originally Posted By ferretrodeo: Where did you get the pink stuff on your girls weapon? I have a 15 month old girl and want to build her one.

I now have 4 sets of pink available--carbine, M4 and rifle.

Originally Posted By NAM: What have you said that hasn't been said in the prior 17 pages? I really don't see a point in a vote. No one's vote counts. The only thing that matters is if more than one round is fired per operation of the trigger.

I was summarizing for all of the lazy S#1theads that wont read the entire 18 pgs.  I then stated that GOING FORWARD from that post it should be topical.
There (since your site emails are blocked) now you have made me make another post to respond to your comment and getting off the subject. Damn I hate being provoked! ha ha

Can you please stop bugging me? I always want the last word.

Originally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: Can you please stop bugging me? I always want the last word.

What if you don't get it?

Originally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: Hey I agree! As per the law is written it is legal!  I put "technically" to emphasize the fact that even though it is legal, it is STILL subject to interpretation by law enforcement and legislative parties.No, it is NOT open to interpretation. It is very clear. One shot per trigger action, not an MG. 2 or more shots per trigger action + MG. From there, you can play the paperwork game. The problem is that people try to read beyond what is printed. Take the law at face value, which is waht it was written at. There is no 'spirit' of the law. It is a group of words, not a person. cmon Hydguy!  Please dont look to pick apart my statement for no other reason than to keep this thread going.I picked apart your statememnt because it is wrong. Just like I picked apart the statememnts of others who werre wrong. If you do not know what the law says, then don't say anything. I have read and reread the law. the Black and white is very clear. It get's muddled because people try to read into it.  I beleive that I have stated pretty simply (and yet eloquently) the facts on this issue where I believe that we can all agree on.No, you didn't. I shall keep the parts that I have.  Remember that all laws have been subject to interpretation to not only the literal wording but also the "spirit of the law" and I believe that all of the attorneys on here should agree on that.  Besides the absence of a law is very different from a specific exclusion from the law. There is no absence of law here. It  is very clear. One round per trigger action, not an MG, 2 or more rounds per trigger action, MG. THAT is clear and concise. Now lets keep this thread just factual in the future.  ie: Documents, Facts, new legal updates...  It is already too long to sift through the gossip and petty differences just to read some facts. PLEASE ONLY POST IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO BRING TO LIGHT ON THIS TOPIC. Originally Posted By Hydguy: Originally Posted By Dull-shooterM4: Wow this was a long one.  Thanks Steve for your info! I think anyone that posts anything other than NEW documentation or law should be majorly chastised.  I have seen the same crap repeated fifty times by people that did not read the entire thread first.   I think now we can all agree: 1. This thread is only about 1 topic: Is it legal to install a M16 Bolt Carrier (with absolutely no other M16 parts) in an AR15?  This is NOT a topic about LL, DIAS or any other parts.  dont even mention them because they are off the subject!  It is NOT about conversions or anything else! 2.  Installing a M16 Bolt Carrier into an AR15 is technically legal and there is no specific citing of law that says otherwise. 3.  Installation of a M16 Bolt Carrier into an AR15 is not RECOMMENDED by BATF, but is also not illegal 4.  Each individual has their own right to decide weather or not they need one, or should put one in their AR15. 5.  Steve-in-VA was accurate in his statements.  technically legal...not advisable. SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK! Also... I had inadvertantly started a thread with the same topic (not knowing this novel existed) here: M16 Bolt Carrier in an AR15?????    you can read it if you like but i think all new posts should stay here. im goin to bed...it was a long read to get here. \ Wow... restating the obvious. And by the way, it is either legal or not. There is no "technically". The written law clearly does not make it illegal to use a M16 bolt carrier, or other M-16 parts, in the AR-15, so long as it only fires once per pull of the trigger.