Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 1/1/2002 5:43:39 PM EST
I spotted an ar-15 preban that was clearly a parts gun. It had all the a1 full auto stuff in the lower, but it had ar-15 bolt carrier.
It was sitting out with 7-8 other ar-15's.

My question is, is this common to see?
Is is a no-biggie?
Maybe I could lowball them to take it off their hands and quickly switch out all the "evil spirits"
Just curious if you see that alot in stores
(not a gun show)
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 6:21:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/1/2002 6:27:25 PM EST by bully]
Several outfits used to put their guns together using surplus m-16 parts. It use to be legal, it may still be. I don't think a judge has ever ruled on the ATF's position. Before you start the flames- I know what the ATF says-Thats not law. Tell me if a judge has ever ruled on it!
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 7:40:15 PM EST
with out the right paper work i'd stay away from it.by just having one f/a part in it you can get fried.even just a bolt or trigger.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 7:51:34 PM EST
The full auto sear is what makes it evil!

DIAS are the registered part or the entire lower on M16's.
If you have a DIAS it can be moved from weapon to weapon IT is considered the class III item alone, not the AR15 it is in.

I don't think the parts without the sear can get you much trouble but I would switch them out just incase.
Link Posted: 1/1/2002 9:43:31 PM EST
AR15Robert is absolutely correct; this is a problem, and yes you can be prosecuted for it. The statutory definition of a machinegun includes a single "PART OR PARTS". BATF has advised against possession of spare M16 parts even for an owner of a registered M16 who has semi auto AR15's in their possesion.

And with all due respect Bully, before you get your panties in a bunch about a judge not ruling on a determination by BATF, maybe you'd like to tell us about the standard of review applied to invalidate a federal agency determination within their particular area of expertise. If you want to see how a judge will address such a situation, I suggest starting with NLRB v. Hearst and Chevron v. NRDC.
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 12:00:30 AM EST
Shaggy: If you will please read what I said, It use to be legal,and still may be! I have never seen where the ATF has taken this to court and won. I know they can arrest you for it,and that it would cost you a small fortune in legal fees.But it an't LAW until a judge says it is. As for their expertise,thats a strech of the term.The ATF has had to back off on several of their oppinions over the years. As much as they would like to, they can not write laws. No flame intended I just would like to know when and when this has gone to trial?
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 7:26:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/2/2002 7:28:00 AM EST by shaggy]
Bully -

I know of no cases where M16 parts (sans sear) have been successfully prosecuted. That doesn't, however, mean, that they never are prosecuted or that they can't be successfully prosecuted. Its SOP to try and get a plea before trial and that may mean lowering or changing the charge. Also doesn't account for guilty pleas. Doesn't account for unreported cases. And finally, it doesn't account for me (or any other attorney) not knowing every reported case out there off the top of my head.

What you fail to realize though is how the courts reveiw an agency determination such ass this. Agencies are granted strong deference by the courts. While you may not, the courts see federal agencies as experts in their particular field and are usually unwilling to question an agency's judgement. The standard of review is arbitrary and capricious; unless there is no basis for the agency determination in law or fact, the courts must uphold the agency determination. So yes, you can challenge it in court, but you have to understand how the system works - you have a far greater burden to invalidate their rule than BATF does to maintain it.
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 12:38:20 PM EST
You as an attorney should know that only congress can write laws,the courts rule on them.And that when it comes to a trial, anything can happen.Also that there are many levels that this could be argured against :they let it go on for many years,one part cannot make it a full auto,just to name a few..I must also say that I would take those parts out as fast as my little hands could move, I don't want to be the one to try and get it thrown out(I have better things to do with my time and money).But it is just their position until it,s upheld in court!
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 5:42:34 PM EST
Bully - you don't seem to understand or want to understand how the system works. First off, one part, standing alone, can be considered a machinegun. If you read the statutory definition, a machinegun is defined in several ways - and a firearm that fires automatically more than one shot per pull of the trigger is only one aspect of the multipart definition.

And of course, just because BATF has not strictly investigated and enforced the rule in the past, does not mean they cannot now. Agency enforcement priorities can, and do change. Additionally, there is no contradictory BATF position that I'm aware of. If you have a BATF advisory opinion or a ruling which contradicts their current position, I'd be happy to see it though.

Finally, you don't understand ...or maybe just don't want to face, the reality of how the courts deal with technical determinations by an agency. The courts will reveiw it, but unless there is absolutely no logical basis in fact or law for the determinbation, the courts must uphold it - the judge has extremely little discretion here and this is not the type of question that a jury gets to address. If BATF can show any scintilla of logic in the rule (and believe me, they can), the judge's hands are tied.
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 8:59:05 PM EST
I can see that we will never see eye to eye on this one. So while I agree that the parts should be removed,I don't think any Goverment body should be allowed to write laws without the courts rulling on them. As far as the ATF showing any scintilla of logic, I for one would realy love to know how one ( and only one ) part can make a machine gun. You and I both know it cannot.So where is the logic?
Link Posted: 1/5/2002 9:44:43 PM EST
Bully -

If you read the statutory definition of a "machinegun" it includes a single part or a collection of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon to a machinegun. The part or parts do not necessarily have to actually be able to convert the gun to full auto; if they are "for use" in converting a weapon to full auto, that is arguably enough by the statutory definition.
Link Posted: 1/6/2002 1:24:13 PM EST
If the part they are talking about is a LL then it is logical.It's only reason for being is to make the rifle full auto. But a hammer ,carrier or trigger just won't make it fire full auto.So I still don't think it would hold up in court! So lets just drop it and agree to disagree. Keep your powder dry,and your beer cold.
Link Posted: 1/6/2002 1:58:20 PM EST
I would not want to be the individual who plows the legal precedence on this issue.
Link Posted: 1/6/2002 2:08:15 PM EST

Most stores watch out for this, if they are smart, to avoid the legal issues and possible loss of their license. I have seen only a couple from the old days from when it was perfectly legal.

You can always point it out to them and try to lowball them on the rifle, considering you will have to buy new parts to replace the FA ones (trigger, hammer, sear, or safety), and they are better without the liability.

They can always refuse.
Link Posted: 1/6/2002 3:13:51 PM EST
What flips my mind is how can shaggy know what bully is wearing! Bully if you are really wearing painties! I let this one lie...
Link Posted: 1/6/2002 3:20:30 PM EST
Bully: any possesion of a M16 part is considered
a machinegun by ATF definition rather you possess a gun or not, but point is taken if you
don't get caught with them then don't care about it then don't dwell on it. id rather follow the law and just leave ar's with m16 parts alone.
Link Posted: 1/6/2002 3:39:16 PM EST
Simple question that has been answered a thousand times in one way or another:

How about a 9mm smg bolt in a semi AR?

I am aware of the coin test. What if it were to fail that quick check? Should I walk away from it? I thought Colt shipped piles of semi rifles with these bolts in them. Personally, I trust what Shaggy has to say on these legal matters. Let's hear your view on this one, please sir.


Link Posted: 1/8/2002 6:03:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cope:
Simple question that has been answered a thousand times in one way or another:

How about a 9mm smg bolt in a semi AR?

I am aware of the coin test. What if it were to fail that quick check? Should I walk away from it? I thought Colt shipped piles of semi rifles with these bolts in them. Personally, I trust what Shaggy has to say on these legal matters. Let's hear your view on this one, please sir.



Cope -

(Sorry for taking so long to gat back on this one...busy week for me)

I think its possible that they could, but like having a .223 M16 carrier in a semi, I think its highly unlikely they would. Actually, I'd say its even less likely to be pursued than a .223 M16 carrier in a semi. Even here, among people that devote a large amount of their time, effort, and money in owning and learning about this weapons system, there is a great deal of confusion as to the difference between a semi and a full auto 9mm bolt. Most law enforcement agents (federal or state/local) wouldn't know the difference in 9mm bolts if it bit them on the ass. The .223 carrier is a lot more easy to spot though.

To make matters worse, BATF has given seemingly contradictory advisories on other weapons systems. With HK weapons, for example, BATF has expressed that there is no problem with having a full auto carrier in a semi HK. While that may not seem to make much sense, I suppose it may be a result of the ease of obtaining an unregistered 'drop-in' conversion for an AR vs. that for an HK. Bottom line is they're two different systems so the rule for one does not necessarily apply to the other for technical reasons.

In any case, if I had a 9mm semi, I wouldn't want a M16 bolt in it. In my opinion the risk isn't worth it. That, however, is a personal judgment based upon my tolerance for risk. Personally, I've got too much invested in my gun collection to risk losing it all over a few parts, so I'll go to the extra time and expense to make sure I'm legal to avoid any chance, however slight it may be, that I could find myself on the wrong side of the law. Additionally, consider that even if you win such a case, you'll lose. A decent defense lawyer will not come cheap - especially as compared to the cost of a semi 9mm bolt.
Top Top