Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 11/13/2003 3:05:45 PM EDT
Here is 922(o)



(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful
for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to -
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the
authority of, the United States or any department or agency
thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political
subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun
that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes
effect.



Here is the decision:

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf

Here is the quote:


Based on the four-factor Morrison test, section 922(o)
cannot be viewed as having a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. We therefore conclude that section 922(o) is
unconstitutional as applied to Stewart.



DAMN!!!

Am I reading this right?

Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:15:04 PM EDT
United States v. Rambo


i'm freakin
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:17:01 PM EDT
Is it April 1st already?
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:21:06 PM EDT
WHAT?????
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:26:47 PM EDT
As I read it, we can now build our own HOMEMADE machine guns, or am I wrong?

I can see it know, homemade machine gun kits for $99.95 no FFL needed. Where do I sign up?
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:30:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 3:47:20 PM EDT by AR-15Fan]
Reading some of the NFA stuff some time ago I was wondering how it actually barred possession and creation of "unregistered" NFA weapons if you never crossed state lines. Some of the stuff in it seemed to hint at only effecting stuff you've travelled interstate with under interstate commerce. If you built your own Sten in your garage how is that anything to do with Interstate Commerce?

How does this decision effect anyone in court jurisdiction and outside of it? Is it saying that they cannot ban homemade Class3 weapons that never leave the/a State?

I think State law will still screw alot of people. Here in Georgia it has this law:

It is unlawful to possess a short barreled rifle or shotgun, silencer, explosive device, or machine gun2. Exempt from this prohibition are persons authorized to possess such an item because he has registered it in accordance with the National Firearms Act. Also exempt is any such item that has been modified to the extent that it is inoperative - an example of the requisite modification is a weapon with the barrel "filled with lead."



Would that bar homemade MGs?

However, if it's not illegal to build a homemade MG, couldn't you still legally register it at some point them and be gold with Georgia law? I'd love to build a $150 full auto sten and then register it for $200 and be fully legal?
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:33:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 3:35:32 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
What does it mean for converting your AR to FA?
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:39:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
What does it mean for converting your AR to FA?



Yeah, good question
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:41:32 PM EDT
Ouch....

Hot potat... Damned if this won't go to the SCOTUS for sure. And be overturned at that. Ever think that this might be a ploy to get some anti-gun decision from SCOTUS?

Damed tinfoil hat, need a new one.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:43:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 3:44:54 PM EDT by AR-15Fan]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
What does it mean for converting your AR to FA?



I would think you wouldn't be able to do that because your AR was originally a gun, that was not built in the state you are in and was transferred across state lines while it was a complete firearm. If I'm reading their decision right they are saying that while some parts were from interstate commerce, it was not a gun at any point until he built it in his state...

But what about 80% AR receivers and a kit? Are the M16 trigger parts considered NFA items? If so I think you'd have to fab them up too.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:51:10 PM EDT
If 922(o) is invalid, then the ATF must accept NFA tax payments for new machine guns. We'd still have to pay $200/gun, but at least we should be able to get new ones.

Kharn
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:52:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:
Ouch....

Hot potat... Damned if this won't go to the SCOTUS for sure. And be overturned at that. Ever think that this might be a ploy to get some anti-gun decision from SCOTUS?

Damed tinfoil hat, need a new one.



SCOTUS avoids gun-related cases like the plague.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:54:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 3:56:37 PM EDT by AR-15Fan]
Boy this could be the best news we've had in years, MGs are exempt from all the AWB rules right?

There are several MGs a home person could build pretty easily making a homemade receiver, MAC clones being another off the top of my head. AKs and ARs being a little harder but still doable I would think?

We need some ruling from the ATF on this whether they will now accept new registrations on homemade weapons then, if so that is great...
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:55:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:
Ouch....

Hot potat... Damned if this won't go to the SCOTUS for sure. And be overturned at that. Ever think that this might be a ploy to get some anti-gun decision from SCOTUS?

Damed tinfoil hat, need a new one.



SCOTUS avoids gun-related cases like the plague.



Yeah, but this is commerce related.

The 9th didnt rule that the section was unConstitutional because of the 2nd Amendment, but rather that it wasnt within the Commerce Clause.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 3:55:29 PM EDT
So when do GOA and NRA analyze this??

CRC
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:00:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 4:01:46 PM EDT by PAEBR332]
HOMEMADE machineguns would be legal in the Ninth Circuit only (California, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam), and only if this ruling stands. You Probably could NOT build one from a kit, as that would arguably fall in the stream of interstate commerce.

Some states in the Ninth, like California, ban MG possession by state law. Kalifornians are still SOL.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:01:25 PM EDT
What if you machined M-16 parts and then put together an AR-15 from a parts kit in your house?

LEGAL M-16?

Thoughts??


CRC
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:01:55 PM EDT
So in theory, if you made a LL IN your home state with materials from your home state that would be OK, as the BATF considers those parts alone the MG?
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:05:54 PM EDT
For those of you who don't know, Judge Kozinski is one of the "good guys." This guy gets it.

The following from his dissent earlier this year in the Kaliban AW case:


Judges know very well how to read the Constitution
broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted.
We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the
press” also means the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S.
844 (1997), and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects”
also means public telephone booths, see Katz v. United States,
389 U.S. 347 (1967). When a particular right comports especially
well with our notions of good social policy, we build
magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases
—or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional
text. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d
790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev’d sub nom. Washington v.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). But, as the panel amply
demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional
guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying
language that is incontrovertibly there.

It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards
for major social change while treating others like
senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they
quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must
be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence
sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad
compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals
from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must
give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to
gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled
gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution;
it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our
personal preferences.

The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic
to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the
temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same
generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely
bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the
Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual
right to bear arms. Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to
ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S.
174 (1939), did not hold that the defendants lacked standing
to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government
argued the collective rights theory in its brief. See
Kleinfeld Dissent at 6011-12; see also Brannon P. Denning &
Glenn H. Reynolds, Telling Miller’s Tale: A Reply to David
Yassky, 65 Law & Contemp. Probs. 113, 117-18 (2002). The
Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and
rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s
weapon—a sawed-off shotgun—was reasonably susceptible
to militia use. See Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. We are bound not
only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale. If Miller’s
claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person
rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered
discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia
use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it
renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior
court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch
when it last visited a constitutional provision.

The majority falls prey to the delusion—popular in some
circles—that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to
own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons
in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But
the simple truth—born of experience—is that tyranny thrives
best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed
people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament
was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free
blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’
homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished
their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol &
Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an
Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338
(1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right
to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-
42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of
slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to
resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393,
417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it
would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever
they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other
armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one
by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.


All too many of the other great tragedies of history—
Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust,
to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops
against unarmed populations. Many could well have been
avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their
intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets
apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent
at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw
Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with
only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles
could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons
of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines
the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw
the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second
Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those
exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have
failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection
and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the
courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees.

However improbable these contingencies may seem today,
facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make
only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the
right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional
structure. The purpose and importance of that right was
still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it
would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle
to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves
can read what they say plainly enough:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain
of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen
short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more
convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored
effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body
weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake
by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.

Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:12:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 4:17:52 PM EDT by AR-15Fan]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
HOMEMADE machineguns would be legal in the Ninth Circuit only (California, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam), and only if this ruling stands. You Probably could NOT build one from a kit, as that would arguably fall in the stream of interstate commerce.

Some states in the Ninth, like California, ban MG possession by state law. Kalifornians are still SOL.



How long before this applies everywhere? I would assume it is already getting appealed to the Supreme Court. If they refuse to hear it or uphold does it then become the law of the entire land and applicable to all the rest of us poor suckers? Then only state law could hose you right?

Also, about your kit comment. In this ruling it directly covers this as Stewart built these from a kit. They mention him fabbing the receiver tube, and it looks like the trigger mechanism. It sounds like they ruled since the reciever is the gun in this country, and since he built that himself the rest of the kit was just legal, non-gun parts. Am I not reading that right? They said he bought a sten kit and built this mostly off that?
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:21:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silence:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:
Ouch....

Hot potat... Damned if this won't go to the SCOTUS for sure. And be overturned at that. Ever think that this might be a ploy to get some anti-gun decision from SCOTUS?

Damed tinfoil hat, need a new one.



SCOTUS avoids gun-related cases like the plague.



Yeah, but this is commerce related.

The 9th didnt rule that the section was unConstitutional because of the 2nd Amendment, but rather that it wasnt within the Commerce Clause.



Oh god, good point. You're right. They wont shy away from it then.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:22:26 PM EDT
IF this doesnt go to an En Banc hearing, or if an En Banc hearing doesnt reverse it and...

If the SCOTUS doesnt grant Cert to an appeal then 922(o) would stay unConstitutional in the 9th Circuit, and only in the 9th Circuit. Sorta like right now the 2nd Amendment is an 'individual right' in the 5th Circuit, but not in the 9th.

IF the SCOTUS grants Cert and hears it, and upholds it, then this would apply nationally (excepting states/counties/cities that have laws against machine guns).

And I have a suspcion that Koslowski(sp) wanted to find a way to rule against a gun law, but since the 9th Circuit has precedence of saying that the 2nd is not an 'individual' right he had to go this route.

Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:26:03 PM EDT
when was this dicision handed down??
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:31:29 PM EDT
Sgtar15:
November 13, 2003. Today.
The filing date is listed on the first page of the court ruling.

Kharn
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:35:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By Silence:

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:
Ouch....

Hot potat... Damned if this won't go to the SCOTUS for sure. And be overturned at that. Ever think that this might be a ploy to get some anti-gun decision from SCOTUS?

Damed tinfoil hat, need a new one.



SCOTUS avoids gun-related cases like the plague.



Yeah, but this is commerce related.

The 9th didnt rule that the section was unConstitutional because of the 2nd Amendment, but rather that it wasnt within the Commerce Clause.



Oh god, good point. You're right. They wont shy away from it then.



Of course I am

But you dont have to call me god, 'Your Worshipfulness' is more than acceptable.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 4:39:00 PM EDT
posting here as I am too tired to try to figure this out now...
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:03:26 PM EDT
wow, i must be tired, for a scond there i though i heard someone say the 9th circus ruled pro gun on a case.....


i must be gettin really tired..
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:10:59 PM EDT
Big problem. This would give Feinstein, Shumer, etc. more ammo about "assault weapons" and the right to own Class 3's might be banned. Think of the ammo they would have.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:15:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By alaman:
Big problem. This would give Feinstein, Shumer, etc. more ammo about "assault weapons" and the right to own Class 3's might be banned. Think of the ammo they would have.



No, this makes life more difficult for them. Becuase this takes away a major tool for regulating firearms WITHOUT directly attacking the Second Amendment which they know they probably cannot win.

Most federal firearms regulation we have today hinges on the federal authority to levy taxes and regulate interstate commerce.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:18:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 5:40:38 PM EDT by AR-15Fan]
Hey, what exactly is this section 922(o)?


(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.


(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to -


(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or


(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.



Is this not the addition that the 1986 "machinegun freeze" added? This part at the end, talking about lawfully possessed prior to this date seems to be what cuts off new machine gun ownership past 1986. Is it not? The court ruled this doesn't affect homemades. That has to then allow new Registration or homemade MGs doesn't it?

If this is upheld does this not overturn the MG Freeze at least for homemade weapons, opening up registration for them again in accordance with the NFA?

I want to nail that out because of the aforementioned Georgia law I posted. If this becomes of the law of the land, in Georgia and many other states machineguns have to be NFA registered to be legal. If you can't register your new homemade NFA item this homemade ruling will only be any good for a few states I think that make no mention of MGs being legally registered. The more I look at it the more this 922(o) looks to be what cut off new MGs past 86. If it doesn't effect homemade weapons and we can indeed register with the ATF them that is incredibly awesome.

Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:21:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 5:23:52 PM EDT by Dragracer_Art]

Originally Posted By alaman:
Big problem. This would give Feinstein, Shumer, etc. more ammo about "assault weapons" and the right to own Class 3's might be banned. Think of the ammo they would have.



This is what concerns me...

Now all of a sudden, soccer Moms will be filled with fear of now legal machineguns.

I can see the big headlines already...

Machineguns now legal !!!
Run for your lives !
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:23:34 PM EDT

If the is upheld does this not overturn the MG Freeze?



Well there is that little cavat about crossing state lines. But yes it seems that, if this is upheld, you could BUILD whatever you want as long as it never crossed state lines as a complete gun and you never sell it across state lines.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:29:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dragracer_Art:

Originally Posted By alaman:
Big problem. This would give Feinstein, Shumer, etc. more ammo about "assault weapons" and the right to own Class 3's might be banned. Think of the ammo they would have.



This is what concerns me...

Now all of a sudden, soccer Moms will be filled with fear of now legal machineguns.

I can see the big headlines already...

Machineguns now legal !!!
Run for your lives !



Well they can be afraid all they want but if its upheld there is nothing they can do about it. Because of the 2nd Amendment, federal firearms regualtion is based on controlling them as a item of merchandise under the commerce clause. If the courts say that is overreaching the commerce clause than there really ISNT anything they can replace it with that can skirt the Second Amendment.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:32:37 PM EDT
All of ARFCOM will be moving West.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:34:44 PM EDT
Just what would consitute a "homemade machine gun"?

CRC
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:40:31 PM EDT
Well, this is a shock. I had no idea any cases were even being considered on the '86 ban.

I hope this turns out the way we want, but it means I'll still be broke if I buy machineguns. But, I will have more of them.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:51:14 PM EDT
It appears the defendant is a Bob Stewart. Sorta sounds like the same Stewart who was raided and carted away for making the Maadi-Griffen .50 BMG kits. (That Bob Stewart is lucky to be alive, IMO, given the BATF's record.)

Does anybody know if this is the same guy?
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:52:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By j3_:
Georgia defines a machinegun as this :

(2) 'Machine gun' means any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than six shots, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Six round burst set up maybe?


b
SWEET! My brother lives in Georgia. So a 2-6 round burst gun would not require registration and permits under Peach State law.

CRC
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:53:12 PM EDT
Mmmmmm Gonna get a tri-burst kit for my mothers house who doesnt own an AR.

Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:53:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By j3_:
Georgia defines a machinegun as this :

(2) 'Machine gun' means any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than six shots, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Six round burst set up maybe?



Cool. M16A2 would be plenty close enough to FA for me..
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:54:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 6:00:29 PM EDT by AR-15Fan]

Originally Posted By CRC:
Just what would consitute a "homemade machine gun"?

CRC



Looks to me like it's homemade if no part of it that is already considered a firearm is by itself is sold, or otherwise transferred between people. IE if you build your own receiver/frame, and it's a full auto, it's legal. Right?

Now what about parts the ATF considers machineguns by themselves? Like DIASs and M16 fire control groups? Be hard to homemake those but I guess it's doable. If nothing else you could rig it up to be a crude, non-select fire weapon pretty easily, or at least you could with quite a few different guns...

What are the current ATF rulings on the 3 shot burst only fire control groups for ARs? Are those considered "firearms" or "Machineguns" by themselve, thus would have to be homemade? I can't think of a easy way to make such an object myself, but a gun like the current M16s that is semi and burst would sure be sweet if that is all we can get in Georgia once/if this becomes the law of the land...

Actually, if I'm reading it right all homemade MGs should be registerable so we don't have to worry about burst only mode in Georgia right? (as long as this ruling gets applied to the whole country)
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 5:59:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR-15Fan:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Just what would consitute a "homemade machine gun"?

CRC



Looks to me like it's homemade if no part of it that is already considered a firearm is by itself is sold, or otherwise transferred between people. IE if you build your own receiver/frame, and it's a full auto, it's legal. Right?

Now what about parts the ATF considers machineguns by themselves? Like DIASs and M16 fire control groups? Be hard to homemake those but I guess it's doable. If nothing else you could rig it up to be a crude, non-select fire weapon pretty easily, or at least you could with quite a few different guns...



So basically the reciever and internal parts would have to be "home made". Everything else wouldn't?

CRC
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 6:00:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spudgunner:
It appears the defendant is a Bob Stewart. Sorta sounds like the same Stewart who was raided and carted away for making the Maadi-Griffen .50 BMG kits. (That Bob Stewart is lucky to be alive, IMO, given the BATF's record.)

Does anybody know if this is the same guy?



Yep, it's all in the first couple of pages of the decision.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 6:00:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 6:02:30 PM EDT
we will crush your puny rebellion



Link Posted: 11/13/2003 6:04:31 PM EDT
I don't know how many of you read to the end, but this isn't all good news. They overturned Mr. Stewart's conviction for possession of homemade MGs but supported his conviction for owning a firearm under disability (he had a previous felony conviction). The last bit is the kicker; in supporting that conviction, they reaffirmed that the 2nd is not an individual right. I would love to see this go to the SCOTUS and have them knock down 922(o), but it will be bad news if they support the ruling on the 2nd, too.

Link Posted: 11/13/2003 6:05:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/13/2003 6:09:59 PM EDT by AR-15Fan]

Originally Posted By CRC:
So basically the reciever and internal parts would have to be "home made". Everything else wouldn't?

CRC



The way I'm reading yeah, and not even all internal parts in all guns.

Only those internal parts that the ATF considers "machineguns" or "firearms" by themselves already, and I don't know what all those are. Doesn't the ATF consider certain internal parts a machinegun already? Like a simple Drop In Auto Sear for a AR? I don't know what they consider a MG in a standard military M16 fire control group, but I seem to recall they consider some parts a MG, or maybe that was only if you owned a semi auto AR15 that they would fit in...

Lot of details to iron out here it looks like...


Actually, thinking about the drop in auto sear, the ATF has ruled that is the registerable item in a converted AR correct? Could you not according to this just homemake and register your DIAS and then be legal in a non-homemade AR convert?

Somebody jump in here and correct me if I'm missing something.
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 6:13:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By AR-15Fan:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Just what would consitute a "homemade machine gun"?

CRC



Looks to me like it's homemade if no part of it that is already considered a firearm is by itself is sold, or otherwise transferred between people. IE if you build your own receiver/frame, and it's a full auto, it's legal. Right?

Now what about parts the ATF considers machineguns by themselves? Like DIASs and M16 fire control groups? Be hard to homemake those but I guess it's doable. If nothing else you could rig it up to be a crude, non-select fire weapon pretty easily, or at least you could with quite a few different guns...



So basically the reciever and internal parts would have to be "home made". Everything else wouldn't?

CRC



Seems to me that a home built receiver and a lightning link (serialized and taxed of course) would be legal. Everything else could then be from whereever??
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 6:13:36 PM EDT
Although this judge " seems too get it", and parts are encouraging, I must remind everyone that the 9th District is the most overruled and overturned court within the Federal System.
As one attorney told me, they make Forrest Gump look like Einstein....
Link Posted: 11/13/2003 6:16:52 PM EDT


tagged for later.

is this for real? where is the catch?

-Spaceman

Link Posted: 11/13/2003 6:42:25 PM EDT
Ooooohhhhh, this is going to get INTERESTING!!!!!! There is a lot of unclear ground in that decision as to how much of the machinegun you would have to manufacture yourself to make it legal. My guess is that BATF is going to take the position that unless ALL the parts in your machinegun were made in your state, if not by you personally, it falls under the 'interstate commerce' clause and they can regulate it. I would think that BATF will now be looking for a test case in the 9th Circuit to determine how much of the gun can be obtained from sources other than the owner to be legal. That means somebody is going to make their own machinegun thinking it's legal, and BATF is going to arrest them for it. It may take a while, but expect it to happen.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top