Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Page Armory » M-16
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/8/2017 6:01:56 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 6:04:28 PM EST
Insurance claim?
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 6:25:49 PM EST
Ask M60Joe
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 6:48:30 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cajun22:
Ask M60Joe
View Quote
I have not used M60joe for anything but he certainly has a reputation for repairing
Link Posted: 8/8/2017 6:56:49 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 7:25:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/9/2017 8:20:05 AM EST by bigbore]
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 10:25:14 AM EST
Atf will allowed it to be repaired even if its in 30 pieces and has to be rewelded.
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 11:17:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 11:49:55 AM EST
Can't see the pic, but AR 5.7 upper?
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 12:33:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/9/2017 12:35:35 PM EST by tony_k]
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 12:50:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 2:12:55 PM EST
So what happened...I'm waiting on my M16
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 4:04:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 5:03:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tony_k:


Here is what ATF has said over the years:

First, the section containing the serial number may not be replaced, nor may repairs be made that make the number unreadable. This will probably be an issue with an M16 mag well.

Other than that, as noted, you can weld together all the pieces if original. There is no law prohibiting the repair of lawfully owned property.

If certain sections simply cannot be repaired and must be replaced, ATF has limited the change to no more than 20% of the metal. (This was in determining limits for turning full-size Uzis into Mini Uzis, and turning STEns into Sterling clones, etc.)

On a practical basis, once the repairs are made, if done correctly, it would be difficult for ATF/DOJ to prosecute a legal, registered owner for having repaired his lawfully owned property to its status prior to the damage.

On a caselaw basis, well, there is no precedent. And all federal regulations are subject to court interpretations.

Hope that helps.
View Quote
Interestingggg
Link Posted: 8/9/2017 10:19:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/9/2017 10:19:55 PM EST by dragpo]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigbore:


Nothing happened in particular, but if you get a KB that bulges your M16, odds are high it will become a paper weight. I've seen 2 local SBRs that went boom, it can happen.
View Quote
I guess I'm confused. KB = kaboom? What ammo were you using? What was the set up? I've put thousands of .223 rounds through numerous ARs (mot many through m16s yet) and never had an issue
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 6:33:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/10/2017 6:33:44 AM EST by bigbore]
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 10:07:35 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigbore:


That's not mine, it was just an example. If you search for AR KBs, they aren't hard to find. They happen for many different reasons. The last one I personally saw was bad federal factory ammo in colt factory 6933. As versatile as M16s are, they are also the most likely machine gun to be destroyed beyond repair from a KB!
View Quote
well damn, I'll be careful
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 2:16:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 2:18:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/10/2017 2:18:56 PM EST by tony_k]
Topic Moved
Link Posted: 8/11/2017 9:20:48 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tony_k:


Here is what ATF has said over the years:

First, the section containing the serial number may not be replaced, nor may repairs be made that make the number unreadable. This will probably be an issue with an M16 mag well.

Other than that, as noted, you can weld together all the pieces if original. There is no law prohibiting the repair of lawfully owned property.

If certain sections simply cannot be repaired and must be replaced, ATF has limited the change to no more than 20% of the metal. (This was in determining limits for turning full-size Uzis into Mini Uzis, and turning STEns into Sterling clones, etc.)

On a practical basis, once the repairs are made, if done correctly, it would be difficult for ATF/DOJ to prosecute a legal, registered owner for having repaired his lawfully owned property to its status prior to the damage.

On a caselaw basis, well, there is no precedent. And all federal regulations are subject to court interpretations.

Hope that helps.
View Quote
Just a major what if. Could you cut out the SN part of a M16 on the magwell, melt down the receiver and forge another one from that and place back into the magwell?
Link Posted: 8/11/2017 9:50:17 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/11/2017 12:24:57 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigbore:
Nope, you cant replace more than 20% of the receiver.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigbore:
Originally Posted By Shermantor-AR15: Just a major what if. Could you cut out the SN part of a M16 on the magwell, melt down the receiver and forge another one from that and place back into the magwell?
Nope, you cant replace more than 20% of the receiver.
Well, you wouldn't be able to forge it - not enough material left. But it could be cast, and the material would be the same, so not replacing anything. Pretty sure it's never been tried, BATFE would deny the letter, very difficult to keep molten aluminum from flowing back into the S/N, and you might win in court.
Link Posted: 8/11/2017 6:06:39 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By backbencher:


Well, you wouldn't be able to forge it - not enough material left. But it could be cast, and the material would be the same, so not replacing anything. Pretty sure it's never been tried, BATFE would deny the letter, very difficult to keep molten aluminum from flowing back into the S/N, and you might win in court.
View Quote
Why would you write a letter for permission to rebuild your own rightful property?
Link Posted: 8/11/2017 6:16:51 PM EST
Just mill and drill a new one
Link Posted: 8/11/2017 6:28:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/11/2017 6:30:00 PM EST by BuckeyeRifleman]
I know it would technically be illegal, but could they ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt a reciever was "new" if it was reproduced exactly as the original, and the original destroyed?

I would think the ATF would have to somehow have very detailed pictures of the original, or some metal composition data to prove it was a recreation. And even then, they would most likely never suspect that had happened, and even if they knew, it wouldn't be worth their time and effort to prosecute at that point.

ETA I'm not condoning doing anything illegal, just thinking out loud. It's a question I've always wondered about.
Link Posted: 8/11/2017 6:38:35 PM EST
It would be easily demonstrated it was a cast lower, and not forged. I think it would be legal, thus I expect BATFE to rule against it.
Link Posted: 8/11/2017 7:28:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/12/2017 4:26:36 PM EST
As a Manufacturing FFL/SOT, I would not accept a job like that!
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 12:25:48 PM EST
FWIW, I think that could be repaired. I'm not certain, but maybe. Preserving the serial number is obviously priority number 1.

M60Joe is probably the only person qualified to be able to truly answer that question. As I understand it, fixing this stuff is tough. Even heating the thing up to sort of bend it back into place creates its own problems, because the receiver tends to shrink up a bit after heating or something. The tolerances like the takedown pin holes, etc. might be difficult to maintain.



Put it this way. It's a $20-25k asset. I wouldn't just give up on it. Even if the receiver got bent back into place just enough to accept a mag and didn't look perfect anymore, that's better than nothing. As long as the serial is still in good shape and readable, I think anything has a fighting chance.


Also, it was rumored that Colt used to replace these when that happened years ago. They'd simply fire up the machines and re-make a receiver, assigning the old serial number to it. They'd destroy the original. That practice was stopped, if it did at one time exist. IIRC, there are a few transferrables out there that people suspect of having been a product of this practice...grey-area guns.
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 4:09:58 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By david05111: Also, it was rumored that Colt used to replace these when that happened years ago. They'd simply fire up the machines and re-make a receiver, assigning the old serial number to it. They'd destroy the original. That practice was stopped, if it did at one time exist. IIRC, there are a few transferrables out there that people suspect of having been a product of this practice...grey-area guns.
View Quote
As far as I'm aware, it's known that Colt did this - the evidence is the new style reinforced buffer tube boss on an "older" M16A1 or registered SP1 receiver. How BATFE views this currently, I don't know.
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 5:11:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 6:16:58 PM EST
Have you tried different magazines?
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 6:55:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cajun22:
Ask M60Joe
View Quote
M60Joe can fix anything that shoots, a bullet.....
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 9:38:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/13/2017 11:20:19 PM EST by tony_k]
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 10:11:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/13/2017 11:06:36 PM EST by tony_k]
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 11:29:32 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigbore:


Nothing happened in particular, but if you get a KB that bulges your M16, odds are high it will become a paper weight. I've seen 2 local SBRs that went boom, it can happen.
View Quote
Makes me feel better buying an FNC instead of an M16 6-7 years ago, although pricing and availability played a part too. I was wary of the aluminum construction at $11-13k. At double the price, it would really hurt. At least you can always buy another FNC for parts.
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 10:33:18 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigbore:


Ruger and Olympic used to do it as a warranty service. I believe it was specifically Olympic who the ATF singled out as the example that replacing/destroying a worn receiver, with a new receiver containing the registered serial number - is considered making a post 86 machine gun. Why the fuck it matters that there is the same number of MGs in the registry is just stupid ATF..
View Quote
The obvious answer is that the goal was to slowly dwindle the supply down over decades until there were none left. As a few get lost or destroyed every year and can't be replaced thusly, they get what they want in the end.
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 10:55:39 AM EST
My thought exactly.



Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By david05111:



The obvious answer is that the goal was to slowly dwindle the supply down over decades until there were none left. As a few get lost or destroyed every year and can't be replaced thusly, they get what they want in the end.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 11:04:39 AM EST
Besides, blowing chunks out of the magwell that contained the serial, I think M60joe could fix it.
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 8:44:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tony_k:

So today, every one of us who owns a registered transferable machine gun is a felon. The feds just cannot prosecute us, nor can they seize our lawfully-owned-but-still-illegal-under-federal-law machine guns.
View Quote
With all due respect to you, as I know this is not your doing but rather an opinion issued by some lame court that, theoretically, could have real world implications under the law... the logic is complete and utter bullshit and I believe would be easily overturned by any court with a half a brain. I realize that my opinion and musings on this along with 5 bucks will get you a cup of joe at starbucks, but none the less I am always perturbed when I hear this. The legislature can pass statues that are de-facto law, but are illegal under the COTUS. Similarly, a court could rule that water is dry, but that doesn't make it so. This is one such case.

The idea that owning a MG makes me a felon, and the body responsible for upholding the very laws we are talking about that makes me a felon gives me a paper authorizing me to to do the same defies logic and cannot supported by any logical judicial body. Further, there are countless individuals with MGs in private ownership that also have security clearances, which would not be possible if you were even suspected of a felony even if had not been adjudicated. For that matter, the ATF has paperwork that establishes many of usare ALREADY felons, then they pass us to come to possess further NFA items. All of these defy common sense and logic. The court is wrong, it's bullshit and the first case of an indictment of someone for possessing an NFA item under this premise would result in this theory being obliterated.

I decree said opinions completely illogical mental gymnastics, void of any real value.

You are not now, and never were a felon.

Hopefully this help with your parole officer.
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 9:33:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/14/2017 9:35:17 PM EST by tony_k]
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 11:07:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/14/2017 11:10:34 PM EST by Stahlgewehr762]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nada-Nada:
I decree said opinions completely illogical mental gymnastics, void of any real value.
View Quote
Well, it is a Gun Ban which was authored by treasonous liberals, so yeah...
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 1:28:27 AM EST
Imo, this over concern with damage to RR through normal use is what is driving RDIAS prices.
Yeah, bad kaboom happen. How many rounds of factory ammo does it take for it to statistically occur and do enough damage to matter on a shooter?(not a true collectable). Youd have to be realy unlucky for it not to be 10x the price of a new transferable....also almost anything can be repaired.
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 5:39:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2017 5:44:15 AM EST by GPSIG]
Okay Tony, I took your advice and read up on the legal mumbo jumbo. It seems to me that the law was written outlawing all machine-guns as way to avoid forcing the Prosecution to prove that a machine-gun was made after 1986. Instead, it puts the burden on the Citizen via the affirmative defense of registration. From my reading, it seems that up until circa 1971 folks were permitted by the ATF to register items that were not in the NFA (primarily historical military weapons) by admitting they were guilty of not registering the item -- not by admitting they were guilty of possessing an illegal machine-gun. Apparently failing to register an item was often not prosecuted and an ATF agent would help you prepare the Form 1! If you didn't write the law the way it is now, there is the possibility someone could get a pre-1986 gun, convert it, and then claim it was converted in the past and they are only guilty of failing to register it. Since it would be pretty much impossible for the Government to prove when a gun was converted, the affirmative defense approach strictly limits MGs to just what was in the NFA registry in 1986 when the law was passed.

In researching an affirmative defense, I think that means that you aren't a felon if you can offer an affirmative defense that holds up in court. If you kill someone and successfully convince the jury you are insane (an affirmative defense) you aren't guilty of murder. So it seems to me the same reasoning should apply here, right?
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 6:31:08 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 6:43:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2017 6:45:07 AM EST by GPSIG]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By bigbore:


I find that hard to believe.
View Quote
I read it on the internet. Is there any way it can't be true?

Joking aside, I found it here: National Association for Gun Rights

"Before the NFA was changed in 1968, one could register unregistered existing weapons, however it meant you were admitting to possessing an unregistered weapon. In fact the law required it, which was a reason the U.S. Supreme Court used in gutting the mandatory registration scheme of the pre-68 NFA in Haynes v. U.S., 390 U.S. 85 (1968). (It violated the 5th amendment right against compelling self-incrimination.) However if there was no criminal intent to the possession (which tended to be demonstrated by attempting to register the weapon) then the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Treasury Dept. would accept the application to transfer the weapon, or to register it. ATT generally sent an investigator to check out what was going on, and if deemed appropriate, to help the applicant fill out the Form 1. The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the IRS (created out of the 1968 GCA, it became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on July 1, 1972) continued this practice off and on until 1971, with the transferor instead of the transferee admitting to possessing an unregistered weapon, when applying to transfer it.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case U.S. v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971), decided the amended NFA made existing unregistered weapons unregisterable, even voluntarily. The provisions mandating registration of existing (illegally possessed) weapons were removed from the NFA in 1968, among other changes."

It is copyright to James O. Bardwell, Esq. I don't know if he is a good lawyer, but it appears he is a lawyer.
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 1:18:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2017 5:42:23 PM EST by Nada-Nada]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By tony_k:

I cited the four circuit court rulings in my post above.
View Quote
Interesting, I haven't read the four rulings - and in fact I didn't know that 4 courts, especially at that level had made rulings that support the same. Thanks for pointing that out to me, if I can get to the rulings without a paywall I will take a look.

None the less, I still beg to differ on grounds of sound logic. To support my position, I will have to resort to hypothetical given that I have no legal standing and don't intend to create a situation in which I would. Bear with me, and always keep in mind none of my language or tone should be taken as combative or condescending towards anyone but the courts themselves.

My position remains that this is a but a cute 'Legal Fiction', and not a literally a legal reality.

If it were a sound established legal reality, a AUSA could seek and a court would issue warrants to No-Knock raid in the middle of the night for each and every possessor of NFA items, this includes police departments across the land, simply by referencing the ATF's NFA database and filing for probable cause warrants that there are innumerable felonies taking place in real time by criminals across the land that are armed with machine guns, short barreled rifles, and other dangerous weapons. On it's face, under this legal reality, this would be true and a court would need to issue those warrants. The AUSA could then affect the raids via federal agents, homes would be broken into in the middle of the night by armed men who arrested those in the NFA database including chiefs of police, et al.

Subsequently, the AUSA could then indict each and every single person rounded up with the evidence of the NFA database and that which was collected during said raids. This would all be completely legitimate and "legal".

Now - why hasn't this happened?

Because, quite simply, it's preposterous. It does not pass the laugh test. A real test oft sited by courts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_face_test

The AUSA, the Courts that issued the Warrants, the Federal Agents involved would all have real world consequences. Even if not legal consequences, their careers would effectively be over and the citizens for which they work would see to that. Not a single judge in the federal court would issue the warrant under the circumstances... any why not? Anyone that can answer that understands the absurdity of it. Even the very judges that wrote these rulings wouldn't dare issue warrants based on the NFA database either! I almost want to get my JD become and AUSA and apply for a warrant from their court just to demonstrate to them how wrong they are. They've painted themselves into corners - it's just that no one that can has called them out.

If it weren't a legal fiction, all of this could happen and there wouldn't be a consequence for those involved. But we all know there would be, and they do as well - this is because it is but a fiction dreamed up in theory world that would never stand up to scrutiny in the real world. The courts should already be able to see the absurdity that would ultimately be the result of this position and realize it created a perverted, untenable, unjust result - but I agree they have not done so yet and likely never will. I believe Scalia, for example, could have pointed out something just like this in a review - lest it was never before him. All it would take is one single such action by an AUSA to create a litigant with standing to get the courts to correct this, but there is nary an AUSA stupid enough to do it, knowing that the precedent and opinions that exist, that conveniently allow law enforcement to assume felonious illegalities while patrolling, would be overturned should they take it to it's logical conclusion.


.... with respect.
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 1:38:11 PM EST
...just poking my head in to say that M60Joe is THE man. I had damage occur to my AC556, and he was able to fix it. Great work, great communication, and very reasonable price.
Link Posted: 8/17/2017 9:57:32 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nada-Nada:


Interesting, I haven't read the four rulings - and in fact I didn't know that 4 courts, especially at that level had made rulings that support the same. Thanks for pointing that out to me, if I can get to the rulings without a paywall I will take a look.

None the less, I still beg to differ on grounds of sound logic. To support my position, I will have to resort to hypothetical given that I have no legal standing and don't intend to create a situation in which I would. Bear with me, and always keep in mind none of my language or tone should be taken as combative or condescending towards anyone but the courts themselves.

My position remains that this is a but a cute 'Legal Fiction', and not a literally a legal reality.

If it were a sound established legal reality, a AUSA could seek and a court would issue warrants to No-Knock raid in the middle of the night for each and every possessor of NFA items, this includes police departments across the land, simply by referencing the ATF's NFA database and filing for probable cause warrants that there are innumerable felonies taking place in real time by criminals across the land that are armed with machine guns, short barreled rifles, and other dangerous weapons. On it's face, under this legal reality, this would be true and a court would need to issue those warrants. The AUSA could then affect the raids via federal agents, homes would be broken into in the middle of the night by armed men who arrested those in the NFA database including chiefs of police, et al.

Subsequently, the AUSA could then indict each and every single person rounded up with the evidence of the NFA database and that which was collected during said raids. This would all be completely legitimate and "legal".

Now - why hasn't this happened?

Because, quite simply, it's preposterous. It does not pass the laugh test. A real test oft sited by courts - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_face_test

The AUSA, the Courts that issued the Warrants, the Federal Agents involved would all have real world consequences. Even if not legal consequences, their careers would effectively be over and the citizens for which they work would see to that. Not a single judge in the federal court would issue the warrant under the circumstances... any why not? Anyone that can answer that understands the absurdity of it. Even the very judges that wrote these rulings wouldn't dare issue warrants based on the NFA database either! I almost want to get my JD become and AUSA and apply for a warrant from their court just to demonstrate to them how wrong they are. They've painted themselves into corners - it's just that no one that can has called them out.

If it weren't a legal fiction, all of this could happen and there wouldn't be a consequence for those involved. But we all know there would be, and they do as well - this is because it is but a fiction dreamed up in theory world that would never stand up to scrutiny in the real world. The courts should already be able to see the absurdity that would ultimately be the result of this position and realize it created a perverted, untenable, unjust result - but I agree they have not done so yet and likely never will. I believe Scalia, for example, could have pointed out something just like this in a review - lest it was never before him. All it would take is one single such action by an AUSA to create a litigant with standing to get the courts to correct this, but there is nary an AUSA stupid enough to do it, knowing that the precedent and opinions that exist, that conveniently allow law enforcement to assume felonious illegalities while patrolling, would be overturned should they take it to it's logical conclusion.


.... with respect.
View Quote
Great thread. I would also like to add my $.02 cents that we have also paid a $200.00 "fee" to own these MG's. How can property be taken when there has been a tax paid.
Link Posted: 8/22/2017 8:09:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2017 8:13:21 PM EST by Coble9]
I would say that as long as the original serial number registered on the form 4 is intact, it can be repaired. If you loose one letter or number in the serial number you would be screwed.
Link Posted: 9/9/2017 9:05:10 PM EST
In a "similar, yet different NFA issue," many silencer manufacturers used to "rebuild" a damaged can by putting the damaged can's serial number on a new suppressor & destroy the damaged can.

A major manufacturer whined about it to the ATF, who "clarified" the law & stopped the practice. My point: this really is a repair you want a great, experienced SOT to help you, as ATF is so capricious with their interpretation of a law you're apt to get 8 different answers from four different ATF agents or inspectors.

Best of luck with it.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Page Armory » M-16
Top Top