I know that a shoestring is considered an illegal machine gun by the ATF, but what if I used it in a different way? What if I attached the string to my finger in a way that the bolt opening and closing would cause my finger to reciprocate back and forth on the trigger? That way my finger would be firing each shot and each shot fired would be done by a single pull of the trigger. I wonder if it would be legal? (or even work for that matter) This is just something I thought about.

Kris

NOT the kind of thought one should be posting to a public forum frequented by the BATF, IMO.

Mike

I believe a shoestring attached to a weapon is an illegal machinegun, no matter what.  An M-16 hammer in an AR-15 will not make it full auto, but it will still get you a felony record, if the BATFE decides arbitrarily to interpret it that way.  
Many people have 550 cord (parachute cord) wrapped around their handguards, or a do-it-yourself sling rigged up with 550.  I am sure that the right BATFE agent could decide that 550 cord meets the legal definition of "shoestring", and "shoestring" meets the legal definition of an illegal modification.
The simple fact is if they decide, for whatever reason, to arrest and charge you with something, they will find a way.  Maybe the guy just got divorce papers and is pissed off at the world, maybe he is a real hard ass who believes the general population should not own firearms and it is his personal mission in life to put all firearm owners in jail, or maybe you commited some grey-area crime so they charge you with something they can make stick.

Just learn to bump fire if you can't cough up the cash for the real thing.

Quoted: Just learn to bump fire if you can't cough up the cash for the real thing.

I have seen Kris bump fire my SA1911, that cat knows how to bump fire!

It would still be illegal because your finger is not doing any work to fire the gun. In your example, your finger became an extension of the trigger and the gun is still providing the energy to fire subsequent rounds after you initially pull the trigger. The bottom-line here is if any part of your body is doing the work to fire each round (one round per pull of the trigger), then it's legal. If the gun components or an external device (string providing a direct link, electric motor or spring powered device etc) is performing the work to fire more than one round after activating the device/trigger, then it's a machinegun.

I still don't understand how the shoestring thing works, what firearm was it placed on?

If the gun components or an external device (string providing a direct link, electric motor or spring powered device etc) is performing the work to fire more than one round after activating the device/trigger, then it's a machinegun

what if i have a glove on?  since i'm not really touching it i'm breaking the law!

That letter says the shoestring is illegal because of intent and not function.  

So by this standard, as long as your intent is not to make a machiengun, then it is legal?

Anyone got a picture of the shoestring setup?

"We thank you for your inquiry, regret the delay in response, and trust the foregoing was responsive."
( I think Sterling needs an english composition class. Can you spell "REDUNDANT")

Does this mean that if you own a semi-automatic rifle or pistol, you have to wear "loafers" or you can be charged with "constructive/possible" possession of an illegal machinegun?

Alphabet agencies= M I C (see you real soon!),  K E Y ("Y," because "we like you!) MOUSE!

Gawd! I love living in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!


This message brought to you by:

Hessian-1(Yeah, I'm bored!)

Quoted: That letter says the shoestring is illegal because of intent and not function.   So by this standard, as long as your intent is not to make a machiengun, then it is legal?

Wanna explain how you could UNINTENTIONALLY and ACCIDENTALLY loop a shoe string the EXACT length needed to link the operating handle to the trigger, causing the gun to fire full auto after one pull of the trigger?

I cannot for the life of me think of an example where someone could UNINTENTIONALLY construct a machinegun.

Quoted: If the gun components or an external device (string providing a direct link, electric motor or spring powered device etc) is performing the work to fire more than one round after activating the device/trigger, then it's a machinegun what if i have a glove on?  since i'm not really touching it i'm breaking the law!

Yes! Your gloved finger is still an extension of the trigger and you are in control of the weapon.

Pulling the trigger repeatedly with your finger: Legal.

Pulling the trigger rapidly, assisted by bouncing the rifle off your beer gut: Legal.

Crank-fire device, that fires 4 or more shots per revolution of the crank: Legal.

The crank fire devices have  a lobed cam that engages the trigger, "pulling" it multiple times per revolution.  So a quarter turn of the crank is, in effect, a trigger pull and release.

Now imagine this: tie a finger loop in one end of your shoestring.  Then, wrap your shoestring around the crank about 25 wraps.  Load up a Beta C mag and point the firearm in a safe direction.  Use your finger to pull the loop.  Result:  100 rounds downrange with one pull of your finger.

Legal?  Or Illegal?  This one's close, but we've only converted the rotary movement of the crank into linear movement.  The trigger of the firearm is still functioning, and one shot is fired for every pull of the trigger.  Probably legal.  I think.  Or maybe not.  I wouldn't do it in front of a Federal Agent, even on a dare.  Since after seeing your mag dump, they might decide the trigger of the firearm is now the loop of string your pulling... and you're getting more than one shot out of a single pull.  And I haven't paid my SOT and gotten the license to do that legally.  And I doubt that any shoestrings were registered on a form 4 prior to May 19, 1986.

Now hook a  fishing weight to the loop, heavy enough to turn the crank.  Let go of the weight for a hundred round burst, no pulling required.  Your hand did put forth the energy to raise the weight, so it's very much like you pulled the string, that turned the crank, that pulled the trigger repeatedly, right???

One could then add a little doohickey to start and stop the drop of the weight.  You could operate the doohickey with your pointy finger, in the manner of a "trigger"....  Pull the "trigger", get repeated shots until the bolt locks back or you release the trigger.

On the other hand, replace the weight (potential energy of height is converted to kinetic energy of crank turning) with an electric motor (potential energy of the battery converted to kinetic energy of turning the crank.)  From what I've read ATF considers a motor actuated semi-automatic firearm a "machine gun", i.e. the motor drive is a part designed to make a gun fire more than one shot with a single pull of the "trigger", in this case an electrical switch.  But conceptually it's the same as the crank fire... which again, has been accepted as kosher.  Quick, somebody write a letter to the tech branch asking for their opinion

I figure whoever in ATF tech branch that came up with this nonsense never learned to tie their shoes, and they have to wear slippers or flip-flops or velcro-fastened shoes all the time.  This is their way of punishing those of us with opposable thumbs who can actually tie our shoes.  Or more likely, if the ATF backed away from their stance that shoestrings are MGs, then somebody would build a device that reliably performed the same function; using the energy of the bolt closing to pull the trigger again.  That, IMO, wouldn't be a gimmick but very much like an MG.  So the gimmick must be ruled against to preserve their legal position.  This despite the legal definition of machine gun:  it has to fire more than once "by a single function of the trigger".  Well, that just depends on what "function" means, and what "trigger" means.

Quoted: I still don't understand how the shoestring thing works, what firearm was it placed on?

I thought you could only do it with a Mini14????

Quoted: ... I cannot for the life of me think of an example where someone could UNINTENTIONALLY construct a machinegun.

Slipped in the shower?  

Quoted: Quoted: I still don't understand how the shoestring thing works, what firearm was it placed on? I thought you could only do it with a Mini14????

I THINK you could do it on any semi auto with a reciprocating chargine handle, so an AK or FNC would work too.

Quoted: Quoted: I still don't understand how the shoestring thing works, what firearm was it placed on? I thought you could only do it with a Mini14????

You need a rifle with an Op rod - M1 Garand, M14/M1A, M1 Carbine, AK series, and SKS.

Quoted: Anyone got a picture of the shoestring setup?

Here's a mug shot of the perpatraters.
Evil they are - no wander they are BANNED !

Quoted: Anyone got a picture of the shoestring setup?

The only one I ever seen was here, it was part of the motivational poster pic pages..I just searched 2, didn't see it.

Many red x's...

So, if you have some shoestrings laying around and all your shoes are loafers or slip-on boots, but you have an op-rod operated rifle, does that make it constructive intent?

Quoted: So, if you have some shoestrings laying around and all your shoes are loafers or slip-on boots, but you have an op-rod operated rifle, does that make it constructive intent?

Of course it doesn't make it constructive intent by simply owning a shoestring and a op-rod rifle. There would have to be some evidence showing that you had/have intent to use the shoestring to construct a machine gun. A few examples of the evidence required would be:

1. Witnesses that saw you firing the shoestring machingun
2. Drawings or illustrations that instruct one on the conversion (likely pretty weak)
3. Witnesses that heard you say that you planned to or have constructed a shoestring machinegun
4. Posts on the internet that say that you planned to or have to constructed a shoestring machinegun

That's the kind of evidence needed to convict someone on those charges.


I can't imagine an ATF agent would keep his job for very long if he went around arresting people for simply owning a shoe-string and a op-rod rifle.

Quoted: It would still be illegal because your finger is not doing any work to fire the gun. In your example, your finger became an extension of the trigger and the gun is still providing the energy to fire subsequent rounds after you initially pull the trigger. The bottom-line here is if any part of your body is doing the work to fire each round (one round per pull of the trigger), then it's legal. If the gun components or an external device (string providing a direct link, electric motor or spring powered device etc) is performing the work to fire more than one round after activating the device/trigger, then it's a machinegun.

Incorrect.



$19.97 thru Cheaperthandirt.com

Quoted: Quoted: It would still be illegal because your finger is not doing any work to fire the gun. In your example, your finger became an extension of the trigger and the gun is still providing the energy to fire subsequent rounds after you initially pull the trigger. The bottom-line here is if any part of your body is doing the work to fire each round (one round per pull of the trigger), then it's legal. If the gun components or an external device (string providing a direct link, electric motor or spring powered device etc) is performing the work to fire more than one round after activating the device/trigger, then it's a machinegun. Incorrect. www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_images/lgprod/RGR-600.jpg $19.97 thru Cheaperthandirt.com

HUH????? The crank simply becomes an extension of the trigger, and each partial rotation of the crank lever is the same as pulling the trigger once. Also, there is no stored energy in the hand crank. That's why it's legal.

Any camming device that has stored energy (like a wind up spring) or an electric motor that pulls the trigger fast to give a high rate of fire is illegal. Any device that couples components in the gun to automatically fire more than one shot after one pull of the trigger (like a shoestring or autosear), without any further input from the user, is illegal.

Quoted: www.iroxproducts.com/images/shoestring/Mvc-637f.jpg

i sure hope those dual machine guns are registered and pre-86!

Quoted: And I doubt that any shoestrings were registered on a form 4 prior to May 19, 1986.

No, but some smartass SOT has a registered one.  It's the one in the photo that has been circulating for a while.  It has a metal tab with a serial number sewn into it.

Quoted: No, but some smartass SOT has a registered one.  It's the one in the photo that has been circulating for a while.  It has a metal tab with a serial number sewn into it.

Tactical shoelaces-- for law enforcement/government use only.

A well-shod militia, being the security of a free State, the right of the People to tie their shoes shall not be infringed.

Quoted: Quoted: And I doubt that any shoestrings were registered on a form 4 prior to May 19, 1986. No, but some smartass SOT has a registered one.  It's the one in the photo that has been circulating for a while.  It has a metal tab with a serial number sewn into it.

HaHa a 3000 dollar shoestring if it were tranferable.

Some of you need to go to the govt re-education camps.

Quoted: I cannot for the life of me think of an example where someone could UNINTENTIONALLY construct a machinegun.

Remember that a MG is also "any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."

Assume for a moment you're wearing shoes, and you're carrying a Springfield M1A.  Could you take off a shoestring and assemble what BATF considers a machinegun?  Yes, you could.  You are therefore in possession of a "combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled".  Unintentionally!

Let's further assume that you've just bump fired a magazine downrange to show off your abs of steel.  An ATF agent hears a burst of machinegun fire and investigates.  Upon arriving at the range, he observes you tying your shoelace with a smoking M1A laying on the bench.  If it's his personal mission to punish gun owners, he could make your life miserable... He takes your gun and your shoes over to the tech branch and has them do the shoestring trick.  Then maybe the prosecuter doesn't like guns... and the judge thinks guns are icky and why did you need one of those semi-automatic machineguns (sic) anyway?   I don't think this scenario is likely, but why should the laws and regulations be written and interpreted in such a way as to allow this?

If rapid fire is really this bad, why not outlaw the firing of more than one shot per minute?  Some ranges have, because the Fudds were frustrated with the EBRers.  Then comes the next incremental step, since rapid fire is for outlaws, outlaw everything but single shot/manually loaded firearms.  They're more "sporting" anyways.

Anyhows... I just think shoestringing is the moral equivalent of bump firing, and there's something screwed up in the law if one is allowed and the other is not.

Quoted: Quoted: I cannot for the life of me think of an example where someone could UNINTENTIONALLY construct a machinegun. Remember that a MG is also "any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person." Assume for a moment you're wearing shoes, and you're carrying a Springfield M1A.  Could you take off a shoestring and assemble what BATF considers a machinegun?  Yes, you could.  You are therefore in possession of a "combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled".  Unintentionally! Let's further assume that you've just bump fired a magazine downrange to show off your abs of steel.  An ATF agent hears a burst of machinegun fire and investigates.  Upon arriving at the range, he observes you tying your shoelace with a smoking M1A laying on the bench.  If it's his personal mission to punish gun owners, he could make your life miserable... He takes your gun and your shoes over to the tech branch and has them do the shoestring trick.  Then maybe the prosecuter doesn't like guns... and the judge thinks guns are icky and why did you need one of those semi-automatic machineguns (sic) anyway?   I don't think this scenario is likely, but why should the laws and regulations be written and interpreted in such a way as to allow this? If rapid fire is really this bad, why not outlaw the firing of more than one shot per minute?  Some ranges have, because the Fudds were frustrated with the EBRers.  Then comes the next incremental step, since rapid fire is for outlaws, outlaw everything but single shot/manually loaded firearms.  They're more "sporting" anyways. Anyhows... I just think shoestringing is the moral equivalent of bump firing, and there's something screwed up in the law if one is allowed and the other is not.

That's why I only shoot my Garand while wearing Velco Shoes

Quoted: Quoted: I cannot for the life of me think of an example where someone could UNINTENTIONALLY construct a machinegun. Remember that a MG is also "any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person." Assume for a moment you're wearing shoes, and you're carrying a Springfield M1A.  Could you take off a shoestring and assemble what BATF considers a machinegun?  Yes, you could.  You are therefore in possession of a "combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled".  Unintentionally! Let's further assume that you've just bump fired a magazine downrange to show off your abs of steel.  An ATF agent hears a burst of machinegun fire and investigates.  Upon arriving at the range, he observes you tying your shoelace with a smoking M1A laying on the bench.  If it's his personal mission to punish gun owners, he could make your life miserable... He takes your gun and your shoes over to the tech branch and has them do the shoestring trick.  Then maybe the prosecuter doesn't like guns... and the judge thinks guns are icky and why did you need one of those semi-automatic machineguns (sic) anyway?   I don't think this scenario is likely, but why should the laws and regulations be written and interpreted in such a way as to allow this? If rapid fire is really this bad, why not outlaw the firing of more than one shot per minute?  Some ranges have, because the Fudds were frustrated with the EBRers.  Then comes the next incremental step, since rapid fire is for outlaws, outlaw everything but single shot/manually loaded firearms.  They're more "sporting" anyways. Anyhows... I just think shoestringing is the moral equivalent of bump firing, and there's something screwed up in the law if one is allowed and the other is not.

shoot naked.  it's the only way to be sure

Quoted: Quoted: Anyone got a picture of the shoestring setup? The only one I ever seen was here, it was part of the motivational poster pic pages..I just searched 2, didn't see it. Many red x's...

I've got the pic, but I don't know if the Mods will approve of me posting it.

Why would you want to shoot quickly and inaccurately anyway?  

Quoted: Quoted: Anyone got a picture of the shoestring setup? The only one I ever seen was here, it was part of the motivational poster pic pages..I just searched 2, didn't see it. Many red x's...

ETA didnt read entire thread

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anyone got a picture of the shoestring setup? The only one I ever seen was here, it was part of the motivational poster pic pages..I just searched 2, didn't see it. Many red x's... I've got the pic, but I don't know if the Mods will approve of me posting it.

Funny thing about that, we have lots of pictures around here of the internals of an M-16.  Any idiot could see the difference, and well, you know...

Why should a pic of the shoestring be any different?  Besides, the concept is pretty simple.  Anyone with a bit of mechanical aptitude here could figure it out just by reading the thread.

Maybe Wave will offer his protection...

Quoted: Quoted: I cannot for the life of me think of an example where someone could UNINTENTIONALLY construct a machinegun. Remember that a MG is also "any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person." Assume for a moment you're wearing shoes, and you're carrying a Springfield M1A.  Could you take off a shoestring and assemble what BATF considers a machinegun?  Yes, you could.  You are therefore in possession of a "combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled".  Unintentionally! Let's further assume that you've just bump fired a magazine downrange to show off your abs of steel.  An ATF agent hears a burst of machinegun fire and investigates.  Upon arriving at the range, he observes you tying your shoelace with a smoking M1A laying on the bench.  If it's his personal mission to punish gun owners, he could make your life miserable... He takes your gun and your shoes over to the tech branch and has them do the shoestring trick.  Then maybe the prosecuter doesn't like guns... and the judge thinks guns are icky and why did you need one of those semi-automatic machineguns (sic) anyway?   I don't think this scenario is likely, but why should the laws and regulations be written and interpreted in such a way as to allow this? If rapid fire is really this bad, why not outlaw the firing of more than one shot per minute?  Some ranges have, because the Fudds were frustrated with the EBRers.  Then comes the next incremental step, since rapid fire is for outlaws, outlaw everything but single shot/manually loaded firearms.  They're more "sporting" anyways. Anyhows... I just think shoestringing is the moral equivalent of bump firing, and there's something screwed up in the law if one is allowed and the other is not.

Lots of "what ifs" there. Can you point to any cases where the ATF has unjustly arrested someone for making a shoestring machine gun?


BTW, the legal definition of a machine-gun is pretty clear cut. Bump firing does not fall within that definition. The shoestring gadget does.