Once a Machine gun always a machine gun is a lie! - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Once a Machine gun always a machine gun is a lie! (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/9/2010 7:53:37 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As to the original post:

ATF has since backed away from the "once a machinegun, always a machinegun". They have even stated so under oath in federal court [US v. Albert Kwan 9th].

Ask yourself this: 07 ffl who developed a semi firearm sends it to FTB. If FTB wishes that some material change be made the ATF makes the 07 file an ATF form 2 prior to returning the item.. The FFL makes the material change and then resubmits to FTB. They in turn then classify the firearm not under the purview of the NFA. The FFL then sends a copy of that letter with a request to the NFA branch to "remove" the registered MG from the NFRTR.....

Happens all the time! Documents do not lie.

Once brought forth in federal court it caused the ATF to change it's policy....As that is what it was, a policy, not the law. It was only brought forth by "poking the bear" for what it's worth.

So, the original poster was correct.

So altering a registered MG into semi-auto is fine... but they still won't allow you to modify a post-'89 or unregistered (foreign or non-amnesty) MG, right?

Why would anyone in their right mind do that, except as a test case?

Where do you see those as exceptions? Those are the only MGs that make any sense that a person would do as why would anybody take a $$$TRANSFERABLE$$$ and weld it up to make it a semiauto? Anybody that has that kind of money, I have some better ideas for you!

Posted: 9/9/2010 8:11:07 PM EDT

[#2]

There was member here who re-welded a Bren back into a semi-auto...I think.
I don't remember it ever being a machine gun when he was done.

Here...

Yeah...MG receiver was received cut...and then re-welded back together with full-auto capabilities welded-up.

Technically, it was STILL the original receiver...or am I horrendously wrong?

Posted: 9/9/2010 8:12:37 PM EDT

[#3]

Once a machine gun... Now a de-milled and resurrected semi-auto (insert parts kit of choice.)

Posted: 9/9/2010 8:14:26 PM EDT

[#4]

So when can I order a semi-only surplus M14 from the CMP?

Better question: if this is true, why can't I already?

Posted: 9/9/2010 8:16:56 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

So when can I order a semi-only surplus M14 from the CMP?
Better question: if this is true, why can't I already?

There was thread a long time ago about this as well.

If I recall, ATF went in, tracked them down and took them all back.

Posted: 9/9/2010 8:19:28 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
There was member here who re-welded a Bren back into a semi-auto...I think.

I don't remember it ever being a machine gun when he was done.

Here...

Note that is a demilled kit and different then what is being discussed here. The cut up receiver in your link is not a gun. Here, we are talking about a case where a SOT could order a M60 as a demo gun and then convert it to semiauto WITHOUT CHOPPING IT UP FIRST and convert it to semiauto and transfer it as a semiauto Title 1 weapon!

There are not many weapons I see this as being very realistic but still a neat idea that an SOT could essentually remove NFA MGs from the books and make them into legal semiauto weaons in the process.

Posted: 9/9/2010 8:23:22 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
As to the original post:

ATF has since backed away from the "once a machinegun, always a machinegun". They have even stated so under oath in federal court [US v. Albert Kwan 9th].

Ask yourself this: 07 ffl who developed a semi firearm sends it to FTB. If FTB wishes that some material change be made the ATF makes the 07 file an ATF form 2 prior to returning the item.. The FFL makes the material change and then resubmits to FTB. They in turn then classify the firearm not under the purview of the NFA. The FFL then sends a copy of that letter with a request to the NFA branch to "remove" the registered MG from the NFRTR.....

Happens all the time! Documents do not lie.

Once brought forth in federal court it caused the ATF to change it's policy....As that is what it was, a policy, not the law. It was only brought forth by "poking the bear" for what it's worth.

So, the original poster was correct.

So altering a registered MG into semi-auto is fine... but they still won't allow you to modify a post-'89 or unregistered (foreign or non-amnesty) MG, right?

Why would anyone in their right mind do that, except as a test case?

Where do you see those as exceptions? Those are the only MGs that make any sense that a person would do as why would anybody take a $$$TRANSFERABLE$$$ and weld it up to make it a semiauto? Anybody that has that kind of money, I have some better ideas for you!

I was going off of HistoricArmsLLC's use of the term above, as well as my opinion of anyone who would do that .

Posted: 9/9/2010 8:25:02 PM EDT

[#8]

SO his would be of great use to someone who comes upon a un registered bring back gun from WW2? Just make the MP40 or thompson SA and you dont have to destroy a piece of history?

Posted: 9/9/2010 8:26:21 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

I was going off of HistoricArmsLLC's use of the term above, as well as my opinion of anyone who would do that .

Right, but registered means both civi-transferable and post sample, dealer samples, and .gov owned guns. Now, I don't honestly know if the military has tax papers on every MG or not but clearly police departments, security firms, etc do.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Once a Machine gun always a machine gun is a lie! (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us