User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:35:54 AM EDT
[#1]
50-50 chance. might get away with it, but i don't really think the risk vs. reward here is high enough if it IS some kind of trap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:36:30 AM EDT
[#2]
Alls I know is that it is illeagal to convert a semi-automatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon and I'm not taking any chances by purchasing anything that will allow you to do that.
Along the same vein, I was contacted for a trade on EE by a person in Ohio (I lived in Michigan at the time) who wanted to do a face-to-face trade with "no paperwork". I informed this person that it was a violation of federal law to transfer weapons between residents of different states without going through and FFL and he backed off of the deal that we were working. A few days later I saw the same person trying to trade the same rifle on EE under the same conditions (interstate trade, no FFL). I'm convinced that this was a BATFE sting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:38:29 AM EDT
[#3]
Years ago, that ad used to read TPF. The big joke was that it stood for "To Prison Fast". They changed the name afer that got around.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:38:51 AM EDT
[#4]
They have Infiltrated us? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:40:20 AM EDT
[#5]
It's just like when you buy a new toy at the Fun Show and 18 guys ask you if you're selling it. Some will even harangue you (ask twice, etc). I am convinced at least a few of those guys are Feds.
It's the way it is now. Just keep your nose clean and all will be fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:50:42 AM EDT
[#6]
Perfectly legal to order and own a DIAS
If you never had or have an AR15 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 9:59:18 AM EDT
[#7]
This dumb@$$ friend of mine thinks someday there will a revolution hes of the suvialist mind (heckuva autobody man though so I think the paint fumes have eroded his brain) or at the minumum there will be a complete gun ban that will only allow ownership of 22's and small shotguns. So his phiosophy is buy now bury and save for later......... There were 8 of us at his shop the other afternoon looking at his latest masterpiece when the subject of firearms came up. He has built some sic AR's that most would trade their wives/girlfriends for. Thats when he started telling us about the latest his mind had conjured up. I know he wont convert one illegally but his mind set is to buy bury and save for future. I also agree it IS NOT worth it to illegely convert over to full auto. And I IN NO WAY agree with his ideas! I guess my point is why does Shotgun News do this? Weed out the undesriables that hurt our hobby than yes I'm for it, but atwhat cost to law abideing owners.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:01:00 AM EDT
[#8]
Yep, you're from Michigan alright. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:02:31 AM EDT
[#9]
In the words of Grandmaster Flash and Melle Mel - "Don't Do It!!"
In an M-16, the "auto sear" facilitates proper timing of automatic firing by catching the hammer when the bolt carrier forces it back after firing and then releasing the hammer after the bolt carrier has moved forward in preparation for the next cycle. A "drop-in" auto sear replicates the function of an M-16 sear in an AR-15 that has been converted into an automatic weapon by the addition of M-16 fire control parts. Tr. 309. An auto sear can, by itself, constitute a "machinegun" under the National Firearms Act. United States v. Cash, 149 F.3d 706, 706-08 (7th Cir. 1998). eta - link for case |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:02:50 AM EDT
[#10]
I thought there was a BATF ruling that they all had to be registered? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:08:43 AM EDT
[#11]
Last I checked, as long as neither party was an FFL private sale is a private sale is a private sale despite state lines. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:10:04 AM EDT
[#12]
that one is debatable. pre 81 DIAS I just play it safe and consider them contraband and would stay far far away. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:11:10 AM EDT
[#13]
Ain't that hard.  ........ Oh shit! 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:12:40 AM EDT
[#14]
The Su-Press-On guy is NOT an ATF agent. So please don't count me in with the "we" guys who know is a "BATF front".
 BTW, it is perfectly legal for a type 7 FFL/02 SOT to buy a Su-Press-On DIAS and legally convert a semi-auto AR15 to a select-fire weapon. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:19:33 AM EDT
[#15]
from atf (B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA? [Back] A person may only buy a firearm within the person's own state, except that he or she may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any state, provided the sale complies with state laws applicable in the state of sale and the state where the purchaser resides. [18 U. S. C 922( a)( 3) and (5), 922( b)( 3), 27 CFR 178.29] (B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-state source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser's own state? [Back] A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-state source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's state of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer. [18 U. S. C 922( a)( 3) and (5), 922( b)( 3), 27 CFR 178.29] |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:26:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Wow that is good reading I'm printing it out, as I see it its my dinner ticket. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:30:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Huh?? Why do you say that? How do we know? Are you Mr. Su-Press-On? Have you not read the law and ruling links? Your ruining my dinner |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:31:15 AM EDT
[#18]
Exactly. I've met the guy that is su-press-on and hes not ATF. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:32:18 AM EDT
[#19]
When was the last time you checked? 1967? For decades (at a minium) face-to-face sales involving residents of different states has been illegal. This is even covered on the BATF's website in their Q&A section. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:34:10 AM EDT
[#20]
there are provisions for neighboring states tho. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:39:44 AM EDT
[#21]
Not for face-to-face. If they live in another state, even a neighboring one, it has to go through a FFL. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:42:12 AM EDT
[#22]
Doh, mental lapse. Wasn't thinking FTF. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:51:04 AM EDT
[#23]
Nevermind, Forrest Addressed it...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:52:55 AM EDT
[#24]
Sorry about your dinner.  Regarding Mr. Su-Press-On, I've done business with him. I have copies of several letters between him and the ATF. He is not exactly bubbling over with love for the ATF. He is a good guy and is not doing anything illegal. I'll let it go at that. You might not want to spread erroneous information about a legitimate businessman operating within the boundaries of the law. Your initial post implies that the guy is something he is not. No flame intended. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 10:55:08 AM EDT
[#25]
Why pay thou$$$$ands for a DIAS from a Class III dealer when you can buy one from the "original inventor" for a paltry $105.00!?!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 11:05:03 AM EDT
[#26]
No flame recieved, I'm at fault here as that what is the urban legand around here and elsewhere have said. I should have the facts straight and I in no way meant any spreading of erroneous information. I too have a small buisness and know how these things can kill it. Maybe this board could use a mythbusters section it is funny though I have heard that rumor time and time again from differnt peopl and on other boards. Would be interesting to know how it got started. Thanks for the claification. As far as the dinner if he doent read this post who am I to tell him about it. I printed the ATF ruling page and will let it go at that.  Thanks, Mike |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 11:09:16 AM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 11:09:21 AM EDT
[#28]
Ahh so you're the secret BATF plant - your cover is blown! Trying to do damage control so your sting isn't a total lost ess? 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 11:11:52 AM EDT
[#29]
Glad you took my comments the way in which they were intended.
 Now, all that stuff said, I do see how his ads could be a little misleading to the uninformed. That could cause bad things to happen to an unknowing innocent person. I can't say I agree with some of his advertising techniques. He should at least put something in there like "all NFA rules apply", IMHO. Regards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 11:13:42 AM EDT
[#30]
Forest, ya got me!
 (Honestly, I do know of a federal agent on this site. In fact I know the guy. He is a friend. He frequently shoots with a few of us. He has some nice toys. )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 11:50:35 AM EDT
[#31]
there fixed it for ya!!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 12:29:25 PM EDT
[#32]
Thats funny
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 4:26:37 PM EDT
[#33]
You will respect his authorit-a!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 4:41:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Funny... everyone else is selling registered pre-86 dias for thousands of dollars.
Who here wants to PROVE to us that the guy is legitimate? Come on, I'll give you 5 bucks. I double dog dare you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 4:50:06 PM EDT
[#35]
You may double dog dare me but I'll put up the money if I can use your name..... Hmmmm maybe I can pay it and use my ex's name, yea thats it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 5:00:07 PM EDT
[#36]
I think it's pure bullshit that Shotgun News allows the ATF to place an ad like that in their paper...
I think it says a lot about them... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 5:01:59 PM EDT
[#37]
So, if you put an unregistered DIAS in a RR, have you created an unregistered machine gun? I'd bet ATF would say yes. Much like the HK ruling, you'll have made a machine gun out of a machine gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 5:09:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Someone needs to explain this to me:
Hypothetically, why can't Shotgun news say, "We don't want the ATF conducting sting operations in our paper. We will refuse to let them "Advertise" with us"... Hypothetically, if someone is doing the same on ARFCOM, why can't the site staff when knowledgeable - deny them use of an account to conduct sting operations? How is it wrong for a business to refuse service to government operatives intending to use your business for sting operations when no laws are being broken? I do not understand and I would appreciate if someone could tell me. Although it might send bad vibes, that surely isn't illegal is it? Is this considered an obstruction of justice? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 5:17:59 PM EDT
[#39]
I don't think so. If a cop wants to use your driveway to run speedtraps from, he has to ask your permission first. But then again, if SGN is owned by an ATF agent... well then...  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 5:18:44 PM EDT
[#40]
Check again. No transfers over state line EXCEPT through an FFL. SG |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 5:20:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Yes unless you are licensed to do so that is an illegal MG. 10 years club fed. Your government will gleefully prosecute you and sieze all your assets for putting one legal piece of metal inside another. While they do that they'll freeze your bank accounts so you can't afford a decent attorney either. Nice racket. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 6:04:05 PM EDT
[#42]
The plot thickens... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 7:36:53 PM EDT
[#43]
this is so taged....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 7:52:15 PM EDT
[#44]
The ad is wierd because SGN's own policy doesn't allow lockpick and conversion kits to be advertized but then you see them advertized.
Seems very confusing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2006 7:59:46 PM EDT
[#45]
Their use of a PO Box has no effect on whether a federal crime has been committed. As for the rest of it, there are some who believe, based on a 1981 ATF ruling, that you can legally own an unregistered DIAS manufactured before 1981 as long as you don't own an AR. You can get more on that here.
There is at least one federal appellate court opinion that disagrees. The Seventh Circuit has stated that any unregistered DIAS, regardless of when it was manufactured, is an illegal machinegun. The case is United States v. Cash, 149 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 1998). In a nutshell, the defendants were charged with selling 15 DIASs and silencers to undercover ATF agents. The defendants copped a plea on the silencers, and then cried foul when the government tried to enhance the sentences based on the DIASs. The defendants argued that the DIASs didn't have to be registered because they were made before 1981 (the ATF ruled that A DIAS was a machinegun in 1981, but said the ruling didn't apply to those made before the ruling). The court called BS, saying while ATF could waive the application of the Ruling to any making, possession and transfer of sears that occurred before the Ruling date, any making, transfer or possession that happens after that date, regardless of when the sear itself was made, is subject to the NFA. In addition, the court seemed to say that even if the ATF could grandfather pre-81 DIASs, it would be the defendants' burden to prove that they were manufactured before that date. The court concluded that the evidence in that case indicated that they were manufactured no earlier than 1994. Bottom line: If you're in the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana & Wisconsin), if it's not registered, it's an illegal machinegun regardless of when it was manufactured. If you're not in the Seventh Circuit, you get to be the test case. I have also heard that there was an ATF ruling along these same lines, but I have not seen any evidence that it actually exists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 7:57:21 AM EDT
[#46]
I truly think that it does not matter how its writen it boils down to the prosicution and judges interpetation of the law. Here in Washington our fine Gov and former Atty Gen interpeted the law regaurding water rights (grandfathered)in a whole new fashion from what they were intended and formerly interpeted so as to now they are in question. They can actually take them if needed. Shes a peach. It has lots of ranch owners getting lawyers teying to file suits to get her "new" interpetations reveresed. I guess the jest is its only as good as the judges interpetation or I shoulda been born a "threatend species" it seems fish and birds have more rights than you or I. Or better yet the golden rule "He who has the gold makes the rules"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:05:54 AM EDT
[#47]
Just out of curiosity, what would a legal/registered DIAS cost nowadays?
Same question for a Lightning Link and actual M-16 auto sear? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:19:30 AM EDT
[#48]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2006 9:26:26 AM EDT
[#49]
RDIAS is roughly $10.5k+ and not many for sale lately RLL is $6-7k |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
