What the hell @dk-prof?

it is not fair for staff to hunt over bait.

Sounds like letters to the ATF should be marked UNODIR...

An 80% AR receiver exists because there is an easy and clear path to legal ownership. I don't think they would allow any percentage of an object that has no path to legal ownership. What would be the point. An SOT could do it, but he has other better options than a dias. Jmho.

Which is why Chevron needs to die.

It's almost like you are trolling.

Any swinging dick can get an 80% receiver and legally build a semi auto AR15.

The whole premise of your thread addresses gray areas of federal regs that could land you in prison. Or maybe not gray. I'm not a SME on NFA Class 3 parts.

And any first year machinist apprentice can make an M16 from a forging on a manual mill + some files, it isn't like an M16 is a complicated thing to build. Guns aren't complicated in general and were historically invented by laymen, they aren't turbopumps on rocket engines.

Yep.  Like I said, all designed to compel people to be content coloring far inside the lines.

that there is an 80% DIAS.

True, but not what the Prof is discussing.
He said that an 80% DIAS could then be sold freely to any AR owner who wants one.
He's conflated 2 items.
An SOT/FFL made 80% DIAS, which may or may not fly with the feds and Joe Blow possessing one, which sounds like a bad fucking idea to me.

As you said, an 80% configuration has to have an ATF determination letter to be legal or you run the risk of creating one over 80% and then it’s a mg.  80% Dias usually is the body with just the main U shaped cut in it, a toggle and no rod for the axle.  Standard setup sold by many.  Relatively easy to complete if you have the rest of the dimensions and a couple tools.  

With your above scenario you are waiting a year or longer to get a reply back and you may never get a reply back which means it MAY be an illegal mg and they can jam you up at any time for making it.  I know of one FFL that made an 80% Glock select fire sear but not exactly like the approved version.  He ended up getting jammed up for not submitting a letter and waiting on approval plus anyone who had bought one had it confiscated unless they had already engraved and form 2’d it. (Obviously they also had to be an 07/02)

The scam is the determination letter is only an opinion at that moment for that manufacturer and it can change at any time according to the whims of the ATF

07/02 here so no one piss their pants.  

80% is a made up number. Just keep sending blocks of metal to the ATF snd getting letters saying they’re not a machine gun. Do more machining, repeat. When they say it’s a machine gun, you’ll know you crossed the line.

Then they’ll retroactively say all blocks of metal are machine guns

Let's look at it like this then.  Federal law bans a drug which is identified by the chemical/molecular makeup of the drug.  An enterprising chemist develops a new drug, that is a single molecule different from the one banned, yet has the same effect as the original drug making them indistinguishable from each other by the end user.

In this case, we have a 99% = legal but 100% = illegal situation, and in a space where the legislature obviously cannot keep up with the evolving situation.  So you put a regulatory agency in charge, like the FDA, who can react quicker.  They're delegated the authority to now issue rulings on what makes a drug lawful or unlawful, their rulings are binding and they don't typically put people in federal prison for creating something that wasn't unlawful before they created it and before the FDA ruled on it.  There is a similarity in the case that FDA ruling isn't necessarily required, nor is the FDA required to issue rulings on every request, consider any supplement that says "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA."

The BATFE on the other hand doesn't make binding rulings, is actually boundless by any rational definition, and they continually change in their opinion of what is or is not lawful.  So what is the difference between a cube of aluminum, and a partially completed DIAS?  Both are lawful to possess, neither is a machine gun, one is obviously closer to actually becoming a machine gun than the other, but either one has the potential to become a machine gun.  If the BATFE worked the way other regulatory agencies do, neither would be considered a machine gun until they did machine gun things.  A complete DIAS, fully capable of being dropped into a gun and running full auto, wouldn't be considered a machine gun until it actually was dropped in and fired.

But that's not how the BATFE works.  They have no problem using the unlimited resources of the federal government to prosecute and bankrupt people for daring to do something that, on it's face, appeared lawful within the letter of the law.  They go out of their way to prevent having a court set precedent that clarifies the issue in question, because of the risk that clarification may be more permissible than they prefer.

In 2021, an 80% DIAS probably looks like extensive legal fees, failed attempts to crowdfund your defense, and an eventual over-frisky cell mate in federal prison after the ATF makes an example of you.

DIAS I think not.
Metal for a Lighting Link is a yes.

The atf and NFA is horseshit. He fact that we can’t even know what’s legal and not is absurd. I won’t grade my students on a bio test by giving them all math questions. I can’t give an essay question that just says “write an essay about the correct subject matter” or anything like that.

They are tax funded so arguably they report to us.
Least they could do is tell us the fucking rules.

I have a double barrel shotgun with 28” barrels. Can I cut one barrel to 6” and the other to 18”? They are welded together so it’s technically a barrel extension like the others on the market.

Can I put a mossberg shockwave on an AR pistol to make a master key? The brace counts towards the oAL right?

https://www.wnd.com/2013/07/atfs-latest-confiscation-program/

TLDR:


One of the reasons gun owners tend to be completely opposed to the passage of any new gun laws  no matter how innocuous or reasonable seeming  is the erratic history of interpretation and enforcement of the current gun laws. This is also why I cringe every time I hear someone who supposedly supports gun rights  from politicians to the head of the NRA  calling for the feds to "enforce the laws already on the books." The fact is, the gun laws that are already on the books are a labyrinth of confusion and booby-traps full of open-ended mandates, ambiguous definitions and unbridled bureaucratic discretion. Many innocent people have had their lives and livelihoods completely destroyed when federal agencies have decided to "enforce the laws already on the books."

The law that was on the books up until 1981 said that a DIAS was just a chunk of metal unless it, along with at least three other "full-auto" parts, was actually installed in a gun without prior ATF approval. Then in 1981, ATF bureaucrats, at their own discretion and under their own authority, redefined them as machine guns, but in their decree, they included the following exception:

"With respect to the machine gun classification of the auto sear under the National Firearms Act, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), this ruling will not be applied to auto sears manufactured before November 1, 1981. Accordingly, auto sears manufactured on or after November 1, 1981, will be subject to all the provisions of the National Firearms Act, and 27 C.F.R. Part 179."

For the following 30-plus years, it was widely understood that any DIAS manufactured prior to Nov. 1, 1981, was "grandfathered" and not subject to the rules regulating machine guns, and that it could be legally possessed so long as the possessor did not also possess either an AR15 rifle into which the auto sear could be installed or the other necessary M16 conversion parts. The belief in the legality of DIAS possession was so prevalent that a variety of sources continued publicly selling drop-in auto sears that they claimed were manufactured before ATF's arbitrary cutoff date. Such DIASes were widely known as "Pre-81 Drop-In Auto Sears" and were routinely advertised in various firearms publications and online auction sites.

Unregistered drop in auto sears made before the ban were being sold many years ago at gun shows along with a sheet of instructions on how to register them. They sold for a while before and  "after the 1986 restrictions" and they they sold for 50 bucks a pieces. I passed on three at a gun show after the 86 ban that were nice including hardened sears that were going for 50 bucks each.

That's an interesting concept.

Laughs in "fuel filter" and "solvent trap".

I don't think AFT answers tech questions anymore, and hasn't for several years.

So is ruling 81-4 still in effect? I know there was a ruling in the 10th circuit that said
81-4 was contrary to 26 5845b and ATF had no authority to make such a ruling.

Constructive intent/possession probably tripped long before 80%.

Doesn't Rowe V Wade protect our use of coat hangers?

hesrightyouknow.jpg

If someone should actually try this, and then go into the business of selling "80% DIAS stock", I do believe that they'd get shiny handcuffs with a quickness. At the trial, the alphabet boys would simply use the same excuse that the Supreme Court justice used in his famous decision regarding what is or isn't pornography, not too many years ago:

"I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it."

Attached File

Attached File

This is as close to 80% as you can get but .gov thought otherwise.


Attached File
" target="_blank">Auto Card

Holy crap... I need to put my sunglasses on to read this thread...

Welding hood works moar better!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The laws about what constitute a firearm, and what constitutes a "machinegun" are not inclusive of each other.

The train of thought here isn't even on the tracks.

A paper weight

The N part of my INTJ makes me feel like this thread isn’t what it seems.   Not that its hunting over bait, but perhaps rather, a covert way of warning people, without letting on that you’re warning people?   Like flashing a scrap of paper saying “they're listening”.  Or, blinking it in morse code..      I dunno.   It’s weird.

It's looking like under the new ATF "ghost gun" rule, owning a CNC and block of aluminum is constructive intent. Or a 3D printer and filament.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted  and you create a nation of law-breakers  and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."  -Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

It’s not bullshit, it’s accepted case law

Edit:  that’s not constructive intent, it’s constructive possession. Case law for constructive intent would be the Thompson Center one, which did not go in favor of ATF

I think it would look like about 20 years.

That’s insane

Prof, I would say you are.

Attached File

.Gov be a digging...Not today...

The funny thing about this thread is

Attached File

That would be an "interesting"  thing for a group to take as their logo and posting anywhere and everywhere.   I like the idea of something like a glow in the dark green lightning link stencil on the back of stop signs.