Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/9/2010 12:47:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 12:53:14 PM EDT by jrzy]
In doing some research for our business I stumbled across something very interesting.
A precedent set by a US court of appeals.
It is the case of:

FJ Vollmer Co v. MaGaw John W.
F.J. VOLLMER COMPANY, INC.,

VS

FJ Vollmer Co v. MaGaw John W.
JOHN W. MAGAW, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO & FIREARMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,




The ATF held that once a machine gun it is always a machine gun.

This is not true then and not true now.

The ATF had also tried to say Semi auto AR 15's were readily covertable to machine guns and that is where I believe company's like Colt got real scared and started leaving enough material in the lowers to create the infamous sear block.




Read the text in the link and you will see the ATF get smack real hard by the Court of appeals.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5187a.html




First, the Bureau offered no reasoning supporting its once-a-machinegun-always-a-machinegun reading of the National Firearms Act. Id. at 451. Second, although the Bureau asserted in court that its rejection of the application rested on its determination that the twice reconfigured semiautomatic receiver was "potentially restorable" to being a machinegun receiver, the Bureau made no findings of fact to support that claim. Id. Third, the Bureau's position conflicted with its own enforcement manual, which allowed exclusion of a weapon from Firearms Act coverage through removal of the feature that led to its classification as a firearm under the Act. Id. at 451-52. Finally, the Bureau's reading of the Firearms Act led to the "incredible" conclusion that every semiautomatic receiver manufactured after May 19, 1986, must be considered readily restorable to being a machinegun receiver and thus a prohibited machinegun under the Gun Control Act. Id. at 452.

Vollmer then sought reimbursement for fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal








Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:48:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 12:49:53 PM EDT by Tekpc007]
your dogs..I bet.they are dead already.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:49:43 PM EDT
I like where this is going, but I don;t see the link...?
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:58:18 PM EDT
It may well be a lie, but they will still effectively enforce it anyway... and the old adage of "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride" is not much of a consolation (or a financial option for most).

Interesting none the less!
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:01:24 PM EDT
That is not the only case where that "LIE" was put to rest. There is a case out of Oregon involving a Reweld M14 that is VERY recent that says the same thing. You would be surprised what even seemingly "well educated" gun owners THINK the law is.

Just because an Agency says it's the law....doesn't make it so.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:03:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kallnojoy:
It may well be a lie, but they will still effectively enforce it anyway... and the old adage of "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride" is not much of a consolation (or a financial option for most).

Interesting none the less!



Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:10:59 PM EDT
Even if they are wrong with out some form of change being right will cost you everything.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:15:19 PM EDT
Anything semiautomatic is readily converted to full auto, depending on your mechanical aptitude.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:18:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tekpc007:
your dogs..I bet.they are dead already.


I lol'ed
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:18:46 PM EDT
Actually, it's just an ATF opinion which only carries the force of threat of prosecution by the ATF.


Got the money to challenge them in court over it?
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:20:37 PM EDT
CLIFF NOTES -

All it takes is an SOT with the time and money to obtain something really cool (M240 SAW Perhaps) and take it apart and rebuild it as a semiauto (in a way that can not be converted ot made auto) and then according to this case they can sell that semiauto to an ordany person.

The problem is, what SOT is going to risk their license to do this?

It would be easier to just make semiauto versions of these weapons in the first place IMHO.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:21:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Anything semiautomatic is readily converted to full auto, depending on your mechanical aptitude.


Exactly!

An AR-15 or AKM is not readily convertable by 99+% of the population. I certainly wouldn't trust it unless it was done by a good gunsmith.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:21:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Anything semiautomatic is readily converted to full auto, depending on your mechanical aptitude.


Is an AK receiver readily converted to full auto?

All it takes is one hole through both sides of the receiver in a certain spot and a little slot on one of the rails.

Anyone with a cordless drill and a hand file could do it. Probably in 30 minutes or less.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:22:16 PM EDT
Poor dogs
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:23:17 PM EDT
No need to get into illegal conversion methods or you guys will get this locked!
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:23:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Badlatitude:
Even if they are wrong with out some form of change being right will cost you everything.

As an 07 FFL there is nothing they can charge me with criminally.
All they can do is say it still a machine gun if I fill in the sear pin hole.
I can possess post may 86 machine guns, I make them all the time.
What we are talking about here is having a MG and then returning it to semi auto status.
If you had the MG legally in the first place they can not charge you with anything.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:24:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, it's just an ATF opinion which only carries the force of threat of prosecution by the ATF.


Got the money to challenge them in court over it?

It's not an opinion now , it's law set by precedent.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:26:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, it's just an ATF opinion which only carries the force of threat of prosecution by the ATF.


Got the money to challenge them in court over it?

It's not an opinion now , it's law set by precedent.


You just said they lost the case in appeals court.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:26:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Anything semiautomatic is readily converted to full auto, depending on your mechanical aptitude.


Is an AK receiver readily converted to full auto?

All it takes is one hole through both sides of the receiver in a certain spot and a little slot on one of the rails.

Anyone with a cordless drill and a hand file could do it. Probably in 30 minutes or less.
That is why the Appeals court told the ATF to take a hike.
That is why the ATF lost
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:27:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, it's just an ATF opinion which only carries the force of threat of prosecution by the ATF.


Got the money to challenge them in court over it?

It's not an opinion now , it's law set by precedent.


You just said they lost the case in appeals court.
The ATF lost

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:28:58 PM EDT
Courts have also ruled putting VFGs on your pistol doesn't make it an AOW. ATF will still prosecute you for it though.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:29:42 PM EDT
A nation riled up in fury over their decaying liberties, and suddenly the twisted web of liberalism starts falling apart one strand at a time.

I love it.

_MaH
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:30:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, it's just an ATF opinion which only carries the force of threat of prosecution by the ATF.


Got the money to challenge them in court over it?

It's not an opinion now , it's law set by precedent.


You just said they lost the case in appeals court.
The ATF lost



So ATF no longer maintains the opinion of "once a machine gun always a machine gun?"
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:32:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By C-4:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Anything semiautomatic is readily converted to full auto, depending on your mechanical aptitude.


Exactly!

An AR-15 or AKM is not readily convertable by 99+% of the population. I certainly wouldn't trust it unless it was done by a good gunsmith.


Yes, it would be easily done by virtually anyone with basic hand tools and a hen scratch drawing on a napkin. It's really not that difficult to lay out and drill a hole.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:34:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 1:35:50 PM EDT by Quarterbore]
Originally Posted By SayUncle:
Courts have also ruled putting VFGs on your pistol doesn't make it an AOW. ATF will still prosecute you for it though.


I have not seen a case, have you? I would love to see it as I have long argued that there is case law to show that a pistol with a vertical grip is still a pistol. It gets grey with AOWs but with an AOW the two grips are not removable and the weapon was originally built that way. Pistols, you can add and remove the grip.

Anyways, that is my own personal issue with teh BATFE and their "Oppinions" not based on law.

I do fully recognize that the BATFE is of the OPPINION that adding a forward grip makes it an AOW so I DO NOT DO SO!
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:35:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Anything semiautomatic is readily converted to full auto, depending on your mechanical aptitude.


Is an AK receiver readily converted to full auto?

All it takes is one hole through both sides of the receiver in a certain spot and a little slot on one of the rails.

Anyone with a cordless drill and a hand file could do it. Probably in 30 minutes or less.


There's an easier way to do it, without any drilling or filing of fire control components. I found a video of it on youtube, PM me if you want the link.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:37:10 PM EDT
OK, I am calling it - IBTL

Try again in the NFA forum and you thread will last longer!
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:37:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gulbrandr2:
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Anything semiautomatic is readily converted to full auto, depending on your mechanical aptitude.


Is an AK receiver readily converted to full auto?

All it takes is one hole through both sides of the receiver in a certain spot and a little slot on one of the rails.

Anyone with a cordless drill and a hand file could do it. Probably in 30 minutes or less.


There's an easier way to do it, without any drilling or filing of fire control components. I found a video of it on youtube, PM me if you want the link.


Drilling is for the installation of an autosear, so that you actually have a safe gun.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:39:25 PM EDT
A lock, 3 bans, 5 dead dogs...
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:40:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Drilling is for the installation of an autosear, so that you actually have a safe gun.


If I had an SOT I'd try it to see if it was safe Seems pretty solid, except it has no fire-rate reducer, so stovepiping might be more common.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:40:13 PM EDT
Hell, there are patents for Browning's conversion of a lever action rifle to a machine gun if you really want your dogs shot.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:41:37 PM EDT
Someone needs to write the tech branch a letter asking " In light of the ruling FJ Vollmer Co v. MaGaw John W. is the ATF reversing their previously released opinions on "once a machine gun always a machine gun"......


I like my dogs too much to do it
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:42:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gulbrandr2:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Drilling is for the installation of an autosear, so that you actually have a safe gun.


If I had an SOT I'd try it to see if it was safe Seems pretty solid, except it has no fire-rate reducer, so stovepiping might be more common.


Get out of school early? We are not talking about airsoft you know?
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:42:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Kbear:
A lock, 3 bans, 5 dead dogs...


Sadly it appears what could be an informational thread is going that way....


Can we all kindly STFU about "how to illegally make a machine gun"
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:47:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 1:48:26 PM EDT by 1Andy2]
Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
Originally Posted By Gulbrandr2:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Drilling is for the installation of an autosear, so that you actually have a safe gun.


If I had an SOT I'd try it to see if it was safe Seems pretty solid, except it has no fire-rate reducer, so stovepiping might be more common.


Get out of school early? We are not talking about airsoft you know?


I got one with a Romanian G kit. It also had a cheap-looking stamped auto sear. The only FA part it didn't have was the disconnect.

Which I always thought was curious. why would it have a FA sear and a rate reducer, but not the disconnect?

eta: Of course, I tossed all the FA parts and preemptively mercy-killed my cat and goldfish.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:47:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, it's just an ATF opinion which only carries the force of threat of prosecution by the ATF.


Got the money to challenge them in court over it?

It's not an opinion now , it's law set by precedent.

Yep, it shouldn't take much money to fight that one. Hell, you can choose to represent yourself, stand up at your arraignment, site this case and move for dismissal. You'll probably spend a few days in jail though.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:49:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By xdoctor:

Originally Posted By jrzy:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Actually, it's just an ATF opinion which only carries the force of threat of prosecution by the ATF.


Got the money to challenge them in court over it?

It's not an opinion now , it's law set by precedent.

Yep, it shouldn't take much money to fight that one. Hell, you can choose to represent yourself, stand up at your arraignment, site this case and move for dismissal. You'll probably spend a few days in jail though.


Unless he gets a judge that disagrees with the precedent. Then it might go all the way to the USSC.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:50:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 1:52:56 PM EDT by LuckyDucky]
Adding a forward grip to a PISTOL does not make it an AOW. Even the ATF said so...

Somebody posted a letter about the Magpul AFG in the AR Pistols forum... It was quite clear.

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:51:06 PM EDT
Dibs on guns, ammo, optics.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:56:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
Originally Posted By Gulbrandr2:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Drilling is for the installation of an autosear, so that you actually have a safe gun.


If I had an SOT I'd try it to see if it was safe Seems pretty solid, except it has no fire-rate reducer, so stovepiping might be more common.


Get out of school early? We are not talking about airsoft you know?


I got one with a Romanian G kit. It also had a cheap-looking stamped auto sear. The only FA part it didn't have was the disconnect.

Which I always thought was curious. why would it have a FA sear and a rate reducer, but not the disconnect?

eta: Of course, I tossed all the FA parts and preemptively mercy-killed my cat and goldfish.


IIRC, no "rate reducer" was ever used in an AK FCG. It was supposed to prevent the auto bits from bouncing, again, IIRC.

The Romy G kits didn't have a disconnector because they were semi auto only. Police guns or something similar.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:58:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LuckyDucky:
Adding a forward grip to a PISTOL does not make it an AOW. Even the ATF said so...

Somebody posted a letter about the Magpul AFG in the AR Pistols forum... It was quite clear.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v318/BiggBore/ATF%20letters/ATF-pistol-Q-3web.jpg


That is just the AFG NOT all grips.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:04:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
Originally Posted By Gulbrandr2:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Drilling is for the installation of an autosear, so that you actually have a safe gun.


If I had an SOT I'd try it to see if it was safe Seems pretty solid, except it has no fire-rate reducer, so stovepiping might be more common.


Get out of school early? We are not talking about airsoft you know?




Thanks for being a presumptuous dick though. Maybe next time you have a thought, you should let it go.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:06:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gulbrandr2:
Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
Originally Posted By Gulbrandr2:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Drilling is for the installation of an autosear, so that you actually have a safe gun.


If I had an SOT I'd try it to see if it was safe Seems pretty solid, except it has no fire-rate reducer, so stovepiping might be more common.


Get out of school early? We are not talking about airsoft you know?


http://i53.tinypic.com/2z7hok6.jpg

Thanks for being a presumptuous dick though. Maybe next time you have a thought, you should let it go.


That thing in the dead center is what they call the rate reducer. I think what he's saying tho, is that it doesn't actually reduce the rate of fire.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:12:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 2:12:56 PM EDT by machinisttx]
Originally Posted By 1Andy2:
Originally Posted By Gulbrandr2:
Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
Originally Posted By Gulbrandr2:
Originally Posted By machinisttx:
Drilling is for the installation of an autosear, so that you actually have a safe gun.


If I had an SOT I'd try it to see if it was safe Seems pretty solid, except it has no fire-rate reducer, so stovepiping might be more common.


Get out of school early? We are not talking about airsoft you know?


http://i53.tinypic.com/2z7hok6.jpg

Thanks for being a presumptuous dick though. Maybe next time you have a thought, you should let it go.


That thing in the dead center is what they call the rate reducer. I think what he's saying tho, is that it doesn't actually reduce the rate of fire.


I believe Mr. Kalashnikov stated that the part had been erroneously identified as a rate reducer, and that it performed some other function.

ETA: Paging gunwriter!
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:17:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SayUncle:
Courts have also ruled putting VFGs on your pistol doesn't make it an AOW. ATF will still prosecute you for it though.


ATF doesn't prosecute. That would be up to federal prosecutors. ATF can make an arrest and submit the case that is all.

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:47:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:58:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 3:01:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tango7:
The problem is that the ATF has no issue with countering a previously issued "opinion", "decision" or "determination" even when the situations are nearly identical. In addition, there is no book or record of previously issued O/D/D's that is available to the public for reference that can be used as a defense and no standard method of examination or decision making that a person could reference.

Add that the the fact that they have bottomless funding for attorneys, and can be recognized by the courts as "experts" based not on training, education or experience, but on job description alone? As others have said, you might win, but it will cost you.


Can you imagine if the IRS operated this way?

Oh wait.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 6:16:03 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 7:00:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 7:31:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HistoricArmsLLC:
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.
I listened to a very good interview online today, it was you and Aaron Zelman on Talkin' to America back in July 08, good job len around 23 minutes, it was good.


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top