Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/14/2003 11:51:27 AM EDT
i was wondering if putting in a kit that would turn my fire selector into a 3 part selector one semi, 3-round burst, and safety.

would this be considered turning it into a automatic weapon?

also if this changes the answer i do have a concealed weapons license.

if this is illegal is it legal to sell it off or do i have to go through a ffl to sell the kit.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 12:06:18 PM EDT
As I understand the answer would be yes, it would be considered a machine gun as you get more than 1 round per trigger pull.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 12:09:05 PM EDT
This is legally the same thing as having a machine gun and requires a Class 3 license to own or sell. I considered installing one myself until I found this out.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 12:09:15 PM EDT
You shoud not have it, and, an AR15 at the same time, unless, you already own a mechinegun.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 12:20:15 PM EDT
no the reason was i have a friend with the kit who offered to give it to me and install it but i was unsure of the legality of it so i guess i wont get it but cant i just sell it or does it sit in my friends house till i get the class three license?
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 12:24:35 PM EDT
Since '86 the Government has ban the manufacture of any new full auto firearms so looks like you're just out of luck pard. Sorry to rain on your parade but that's just the way it is in this country for now. Talk to ya' later. TN.Frank
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 12:35:22 PM EDT
Like has been said already, if you get more than one shot from one pull of the trigger, it's a machinegun and must be registered as such. Penalties are harsh. Only exception: You can use a fully external trigger manipulator type device {like a "tac trigger") on the rifle, but it has to be completely external and not permanently mounted in any way. But it's really just a multi-lobed crank and it's more of a gimmick than anything useful. CJ
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 1:05:06 PM EDT
GOt news for ya, the gun doesnt even have to work. Just you OWNING those parts (not even in the gun) will get ya in trouble. IF ya have an AR and any C3 part and no NFA stamp, its illegal. even if the part is in another room, it doesnt matter.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 1:31:55 PM EDT
thanks for the info just out of curiosity where do i go to find info on obtaining a class 3 machinegun license?
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 1:42:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 1:46:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2003 1:47:11 PM EDT by _DR]
You might have to dig a bit, but it's all here also. http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/index.htm
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 1:53:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By die-tryin: GOt news for ya, the gun doesnt even have to work. Just you OWNING those parts (not even in the gun) will get ya in trouble. IF ya have an AR and any C3 part and no NFA stamp, its illegal. even if the part is in another room, it doesnt matter.
View Quote
im gonna have to call BS on that. The law is very clear. IF your rifle fires more than one shot per operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. I could have an M16 trigger. I could have an M16 bolt carrier. IF THE WEAPON ONLY FIRES ONE SHOT PER PULL OF TRIGGER, IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. Now....i must caveat that by saying a few exceptions. IF your rifle is drilled for a sear, it is a machinegun. Also, if you have ALL PARTS NECESSARY to enable more than one shot per pull of the trigger, you may be found guilty of "constructive intent" to manufacture a machinegun. IF all you want to do is have an M16 selector to freak your friends out..legally there is nothing wrong with that...PROVIDED THE AR ONLY FIRES ONE SHOT PER PULL OF TRIGGER. I would advise against using M16 parts. However, the law is very clear. Either it fires more than one shot per pull of trigger, or not. I am not a lawyer, nor do i play one on tv. YMMV, FWIW, All Rights Reserved, etc.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 2:32:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2003 2:36:01 PM EDT by 199]
Originally Posted By die-tryin: ... Just you OWNING those parts (not even in the gun) will get ya in trouble. ...
View Quote
That was a common belief on this site a year or so ago, based IIRC on a warning to that effect on the bushmaster site. I understand it’s no longer considered true by our legal-beagle type members. I haven’t a clue one way or another myself. Edited to add that, now that I think about it, this may vary depending on the specific part being discussed.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 3:43:13 PM EDT
ok guys thanks for the info and now i guess the kit will rot in my friends house until i get the 200 and the forms to register it thanks for the info
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 3:49:25 PM EDT
The only LEGAL ways for you to have a machinegun are for you to purchase, VIA THE PROPER CHANNELS, a properly registered drop-in autosear, or a properly registered lightning link, or a properly registered pre-'86 lower receiver. There is absolutely NO WAY AT ALL that you can legally make your AR a machinegun outside of those avenues. NONE. Installing an autosear that isn't registered or lightning link that isn't registered in a receiver that isn't registered is totally illegal. It's just that simple. CJ
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 3:52:29 PM EDT
zer04evr 9/14/2003 7:43:13 PM ok guys thanks for the info and now i guess the kit will rot in my friends house until i get the 200 and the forms to register it thanks for the info
View Quote
LOL, theres more to it than jus that. Talk to a C3 dealer if your serious.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 4:31:56 PM EDT
Talk to a C3 dealer
View Quote
a what? sorry for all the noobish questions but i really wanna use the kit
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 5:24:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 7:32:44 PM EDT
thnks for the info danm well whatevr ill spend that cash on a new ar. at least i can bump fire it for free ok guys thanks
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 7:42:30 PM EDT
NAM, you're wrong....one full auto part and it's a machinegun per the law....
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 8:02:51 PM EDT
hmm.. then i guess all my ak's are fullauto's... they have full auto barrels... LittleJacek
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 8:06:18 PM EDT
Post the law, or just keep getting your legal advice from the gun show crowd.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 11:17:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2003 11:26:34 PM EDT by AK_Mike]
Originally Posted By Da_Bunny: NAM, you're wrong....one full auto part and it's a machinegun per the law....
View Quote
DA_Bunny, sorry but it's you that is wrong. Nam is correct. It is only a machinegun if you can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, it's right in the federal regs - read them, and also iterated by an ATFE letter of opinion. Even the opinion letter of Bardwell does not say just one part is illegal, only if you have enough parts that you can install to make the rifle fire in a fully automatic mode. Read this [url=http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=14&t=169526&w=searchPop]thread[/url] "The definition of a machinegun in section 5845(b) also includes 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. Thus, an AR15 rifle possessed with separate M16 machinegun components can meet the definition of a machinegun, if the rifle shoots automatically when the components are installed. - KEY WORD IS "IF" This is from an official ATFE letter. If David wants me to post the quote from the federal book, that will have to wait two weeks until I can get home to get my book - the ones I get direct from the government from when I was a C3 dealer, the same book every FFL holder receives, which is updated from time to time. I challenge anyone to show me publicated federal print that says otherwise. The letter only [b]RECOMMENDS[/b] that you do not have any M16 parts, it doesn't say it's against the law. The only exception I can think of is having an unregistered autosear and no M16/Registered AR15, as that would not be a spare part. You can ALSO have an M16 AND AR-15's at the same time. zer04evr, your CCW license has nothing to do with the matter and does not allow you any special priviledges except carrying concealed and bypassing waiting periods and checks.
Link Posted: 9/14/2003 11:35:39 PM EDT
It is my understanding that it isn't technically illegal to make new machine guns. I thought it was some tom-foolery with an executive order or some such that has effectively banned them. Something GB Sr did.... can someone clarify?
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 4:40:52 AM EDT
No, it's not an XO that prohibits it, it's law. It was part of, ironically, the "Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986". There were some VERY disturbing irregularities about how the MG ban became law. It was essentially shoved through at the last moment in a timed session and nobody was even given the opportunity to debate it before the session ran out. Though some congressmen raised hell, the jackass running the show said 'No argument. Time's up and that's that." or something to that effect. If you Google it long enough, you'll find it. CJ
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 2:50:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By XenaduKhan: It is my understanding that it isn't technically illegal to make new machine guns. I thought it was some tom-foolery with an executive order or some such that has effectively banned them. Something GB Sr did.... can someone clarify?
View Quote
Not illegal, but remember this. Because of the 1986 law, any machinegun created/manufactured or imported after that date can only be sold to government and law enforcement entities. As C2 manufacturer, you can make them, and retain them, as long as you give them up when you go out of business. Same with assault rifles - any new ones are LEO only. You must either be a licensed manufacturer (C2) or fill out the appropriate form, and have it processed and registered by the BATF before making your own. I know you can make your own suppressor, but I am unsure whether a non SOT (special occupation tax) holder can make a new MG - I doubt it, but I don't really know at this point.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 5:26:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NAM:
Originally Posted By die-tryin: GOt news for ya, the gun doesnt even have to work. Just you OWNING those parts (not even in the gun) will get ya in trouble. IF ya have an AR and any C3 part and no NFA stamp, its illegal. even if the part is in another room, it doesnt matter.
View Quote
im gonna have to call BS on that. The law is very clear. IF your rifle fires more than one shot per operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. I could have an M16 trigger. I could have an M16 bolt carrier. IF THE WEAPON ONLY FIRES ONE SHOT PER PULL OF TRIGGER, IT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. Now....i must caveat that by saying a few exceptions. IF your rifle is drilled for a sear, it is a machinegun. Also, if you have ALL PARTS NECESSARY to enable more than one shot per pull of the trigger, you may be found guilty of "constructive intent" to manufacture a machinegun. IF all you want to do is have an M16 selector to freak your friends out..legally there is nothing wrong with that...PROVIDED THE AR ONLY FIRES ONE SHOT PER PULL OF TRIGGER. I would advise against using M16 parts. However, the law is very clear. Either it fires more than one shot per pull of trigger, or not. I am not a lawyer, nor do i play one on tv. YMMV, FWIW, All Rights Reserved, etc.
View Quote
I have to respectfully disagree. [i][b]26 USC 5845(b)[/b] 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, [red]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.[/red][/i] Now note; the part of the definition that encompases parts does not require they actually function as a machinegun. Only that they are "designed and intended" for use in converting a weapon to a machinegun. As an example, I own several registered DIAS's. An RDIAS alone will not fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. Even installed in an AR15 type rilfe, without full auto fire components, it will not fire full auto. It is, however, a machinegun, in and of itself. It is not a machinegun only when properly installed in an AR15 type rifle and made capable of full auto fire. It is a machinegun standing alone, without anything more. Similarly, a collection of M2 carbine fire control parts is considered a machinegun also. Whether it actually fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger is only part of the definition. What I have posted above is the [i]law[/i]. People have referenced BATF's letters, but they are not law; they're not even validly promulgated regulations or rulings. They are advisory opinions. Advisory opinions give you a peek into the current BATF thought on a particular issue (ie. how BATF currently interprets the law as applied to a particular set of circumstances), but they are not binding and can be changed at the drop of a hat, without notice. Whenever you look at an advisory opinion, look at the date. BATF can (and has) changed opinions with regard to NFA weapons and if you don't keep current you can find yourself in jeopardy of a felony. For example, consider BATF's past positions on supressor parts. Years ago, you could buy supressor parts over the counter. Had you requested an advisory opinion on the legality of selling supressor wipes without an FFL/SOT, BATF would have said it was ok. BATF changed position, however, and began treating supressor parts as supressors in and of themselves, requiring an FFL/SOT to make/sell wipes. Rumour has it BATF has again changed position and is now allowing wipes to be sold unregulated. Additionally, regardless of BATF's opinion on a particular set of circumstances, it is not BATF that will decide what charges you get prosecuted on if you get caught. The AUSA would be the prosecutorial arm of Uncle Sam and as such, they would decide whether they thought a collection of one or more M16 parts possessed in conjunction with a semiautomatic AR15 was a violation of the National Firearms Act or 922(o). Certainly, they would probably take some advisement from BATF, but they don't have to, and especially when its in the form of an informal opinion issued by BATF years earlier to a person not a party to the current action.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 6:24:08 PM EDT
I remembered more about the ban on post-'86 MG's. The way it actually works is that it's essentially a tax law. You see, all MG's have to be registered and a 200 dollar per unit tax has to be paid to the Treasury for the making or transfer of an MG. The May '86 law does the following: 1: Closes the NFA registry for MG's for transferrable civilian sales. 2: Prohibits the Treasury from accepting further tax payments for MG's that were not already in the registry as of the date the ban went into effect in May, 1986. If someone could successfully challenge the idea that the government can refuse to collect a tax that it imposes, then the ban could possibly be overturned. This hasn't been tried successfully yet. CJ
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 6:41:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2003 6:50:05 PM EDT by AK_Mike]
Think about this for a while. An upper with the autosear cutout is a part that had a design feature SOLELY for the purpose of allowing autofire, the cutout is not needed for anything else. Most uppers I see, except Colt bastard uppers, are cut for this, that would make them all illegal in an "any autopart is illegal" view. An M16 bolt carrier for example is not designed SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY to CONVERT a weapon, it is intended as a part or spare part in an unconverted MG. An RDIAS or Lightning Link on the otherhand, IS SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY designed to CONVERT a weapon into an MG. Standard full auto parts, other than those that have no semi-auto version, are NOT designed SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY to convert a gun. So personally speaking, I still don't see a problem with using some of the autoparts in a semi AR-15, though it makes me more confident that I have a registered M16 to legitimize spare autoparts.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 7:27:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2003 7:29:09 PM EDT by shaggy]
Mike - Colt redesigned the upper to preclude the use of a sear in a semi; its a designed and intended to be semi only (and note that Colt was the only company to redesign the sear cut-out in the upper). Thats a very different scenario from M16 fire control parts which are designed and intended specifically to achieve full auto fire from an AR15/M16 type weapon. Now you can disagree with me all you want, but the mere fact that reasonable minds [i]can[/i] disagree on this is a good sign there is at least enough uncertainty to get to trial. And isn't that part of the point? You might get lucky, have a dumbass of a prosecutor and actually win, but it'll cost you more in legal fees than a safe full of transferable M16's. Of course, there's no guarantees in the courtroom, so you might lose the same amount in legal fees and still go to club fed. So you wanna to be the test case?
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 11:07:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2003 11:11:22 PM EDT by AK_Mike]
My last comment on this thread concerning this subject as it got off thread. Shaggy, no problem here, we can agree to disagree. Due to the lack of confusion and hard, unquestionably clear law, people are bound to have different opinions - heck, even the ATFE bureau chiefs disagree! I also agree that it is best to play it safe, to a certain point, and that point must be decided by each individual. Court will ruin you whether you win or not. It's up to each of us to weigh the risk and deside whether we are really playing it safe, or how safe we care to play it. Myself, due to what I have seen in print from the Feds, and my best interpretation I have decided for myself and myself only that I can have standard M16 parts in my AR-15's (no conversion kits/parts or autosears) as long as they do not fire in full auto. I can have both an M16 and AR-15's. I can have some, but not all spare parts for my M16. I can have multiple short barreled uppers for my M16 along with my AR-15's. IMO, I have not seen any writing that says these are currently against the law (some use of letters of opinion as precedent). Others will disagree - no problem there, everyone is entitled. If I end up in court, so be it, but I don't think I am in a high degree of danger as I have been inspected multiple times by ATFE when I was a C3 dealer, and I never had a problem, and I continue to comply to my understanding, which has cost me a LOT of money. Does this mean I will never end up in court? No. Does this mean I think 100% I would win in court if I went, or not be ruined financially? No. But I think I am being prudent, playing it safe to a reasonable degree, and have law and precedent to back me up. Should anyone take what is posted on ARF as law, to include what I spout? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You need to do your own research, and weigh the risks for yourself. There are landmark cases, and minor cases, but there are a LOT of NFA owners and I surmise that far less than 1% have ever gone to court - which is no protection, but shows we are as compliant as we can reasonably be, and we are not all in danger - use your head, common sense, and what you think the government thinks is right as you see it, not what you feel should be right, but what you think they think is right based on what is available. -M
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 11:07:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2003 11:08:14 PM EDT by DevL]
A full auto carrier (like the one in my AR15) can be used to allow an AR15 to function as a semi auto. It is not solely used as a full auto part. I even wrote a nice detailed letter to the technical branch of the ATF telling them what I did. If I can find out that I can get a modified full auto selector to allow a full auto KAC 2 stage trigger to allow the option of a single stage trigger and 2 stage trigger (semi auto) with the flip of a lever I will do that too and have a full auto trigger, hammer and disconnector in my rifle as well. I will then write another letter to the ATF technical branch and tell them what I have done. None of this is illegal. I am unafraid of prosecution. If you are a sniveling coward thats your own personal problem.
Link Posted: 9/15/2003 11:53:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevL: If you are a sniveling coward thats your own personal problem.
View Quote
[lol] thats how we should generalize life!!!
Link Posted: 9/16/2003 5:14:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AK_Mike: My last comment on this thread concerning this subject as it got off thread. Shaggy, no problem here, we can agree to disagree. Due to the lack of confusion and hard, unquestionably clear law, people are bound to have different opinions - heck, even the ATFE bureau chiefs disagree! I also agree that it is best to play it safe, to a certain point, and that point must be decided by each individual. Court will ruin you whether you win or not. It's up to each of us to weigh the risk and deside whether we are really playing it safe, or how safe we care to play it. Myself, due to what I have seen in print from the Feds, and my best interpretation I have decided for myself and myself only that I can have standard M16 parts in my AR-15's (no conversion kits/parts or autosears) as long as they do not fire in full auto. I can have both an M16 and AR-15's. I can have some, but not all spare parts for my M16. I can have multiple short barreled uppers for my M16 along with my AR-15's. IMO, I have not seen any writing that says these are currently against the law (some use of letters of opinion as precedent). Others will disagree - no problem there, everyone is entitled. If I end up in court, so be it, but I don't think I am in a high degree of danger as I have been inspected multiple times by ATFE when I was a C3 dealer, and I never had a problem, and I continue to comply to my understanding, which has cost me a LOT of money. Does this mean I will never end up in court? No. Does this mean I think 100% I would win in court if I went, or not be ruined financially? No. But I think I am being prudent, playing it safe to a reasonable degree, and have law and precedent to back me up. Should anyone take what is posted on ARF as law, to include what I spout? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You need to do your own research, and weigh the risks for yourself. There are landmark cases, and minor cases, but there are a LOT of NFA owners and I surmise that far less than 1% have ever gone to court - which is no protection, but shows we are as compliant as we can reasonably be, and we are not all in danger - use your head, common sense, and what you think the government thinks is right as you see it, not what you feel should be right, but what you think they think is right based on what is available. -M
View Quote
Mike - Well said; on that I agree with you completely. My point is not not to tell people what they should or shouldn't do; thats a personal decision based upon your own situation and tolerance for risk. I only point out what the actual law says and how it [i]could[/i] be used. Although BATF letters are good for guidance, I think too many people place far too much weight on advisory opinions because they simply don't understand that they are not law, and that they can be changed at any time. And certainly, if I can make a tenable argument simply using the law or a validly promulgated federal regulation, an AUSA can. And thats where the risk comes in. Like you said, if you have to go to court, whether you win or lose, you still lose. My NFA collection is up to about 6 figures now. If I had to go to court I'd likely have to sell all of my collection to help pay for my defense. It would be a Phyrric victory at best If one wants to ignore prudent advice, thats fine. We all make our choices in life and we all have to live with our decisions. I just want people to make a fully informed decision.
Link Posted: 9/16/2003 5:24:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DevL: A full auto carrier (like the one in my AR15) can be used to allow an AR15 to function as a semi auto. It is not solely used as a full auto part. I even wrote a nice detailed letter to the technical branch of the ATF telling them what I did. If I can find out that I can get a modified full auto selector to allow a full auto KAC 2 stage trigger to allow the option of a single stage trigger and 2 stage trigger (semi auto) with the flip of a lever I will do that too and have a full auto trigger, hammer and disconnector in my rifle as well. I will then write another letter to the ATF technical branch and tell them what I have done. None of this is illegal. I am unafraid of prosecution. If you are a sniveling coward thats your own personal problem.
View Quote
If you pull that one off, let us know (the technical details)...sounds like a very interesting project, being able to swtich from single to two-stage trigger easily. -FOTBR (sorry for being off topic)
Link Posted: 9/16/2003 6:24:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2003 6:29:42 AM EDT by RenegadeX]
Think about this for a while. An upper with the autosear cutout is a part that had a design feature SOLELY for the purpose of allowing autofire, the cutout is not needed for anything else. Most uppers I see, except Colt bastard uppers, are cut for this, that would make them all illegal in an "any autopart is illegal" view.
View Quote
Exactly. But said cut does not allow full-auto fire in and of itself, just as M16 carrier does not. Don't forget small pin fronts, they were for MGs only too for a long time.
Link Posted: 9/16/2003 3:04:08 PM EDT
Another thing to consider is that the upper receiver is not considered by the BATF to be a fire control component or part of the trigger group in any way. So nothing you can do to it is going to violate any laws. CJ
Link Posted: 9/16/2003 4:57:21 PM EDT
Guys, guys, guys, I only mentioned the sear cut on the uppers out of SARCASM. I absolutely do not think it is an autopart. I was trying to demonstrate that just because something is made for full auto, does not mean it is something that converts your rifle. If anyone thought I was trying to say that it was an autopart, and illegal or had some legal ramifications, then you misunderstood my poorly worded joke. The only parts that are verboten are parts SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY meant to CONVERT a firearm into an MG, such as the RDIAS, LL, etc...
Link Posted: 9/16/2003 8:49:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2003 9:09:48 PM EDT by _DR]
Originally Posted By David_Hineline: Post the law, or just keep getting your legal advice from the gun show crowd.
View Quote
You know, you are absolutely right (here it is again): Machine gun. 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 machine gun, 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. SOURCE:Federal Firearms Act. 15 U.S.C. Chapter 18. (http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm)
Top Top