Posted: 8/17/2002 4:54:07 PM EDT
|
Would ya mind coming over to Full-Auto.com ([url]http://www.full-auto.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001634;p=1[/url]) for a minute to help correct a moron on laws relating to MGs ??? Here is what he posted: Quoted: Quoted: #5 states that a combination of parts from which a MG can be assembled constitutes a MG. You cannot assemble an Uzi into a functional MG w/o a Receiver...Therefore...no receiver, no MG. Once again, you are putting words where .gov had none. It says nothing of a receiver. It only mentions the parts. For a shithouse lawyer, you don't know much legalese. Parts are enough. I don't have a special helmet, so beating my head against a wall hurts. Do as you wish. It's your sphincter. The info is out there, those who want to let wishful thinking control the destiny of their bacon rings can and will rationalize any course of action. And they, of course, deserve what they get. This guy is convinced that a MG parts kit by itself constitutes a MG even w/o the Receiver. I have tried everything short of knocking him up the side of the head to explain that w/o the receiver, you cannot assemble it... |
|
The reason ATF is confiscating the kits is that they were sold with what ATF considers to be an insufficiently-demilled receiver. As such, the complete parts kit and still "live" MG receiver consitute a complete firearm, and are subject to seizure under current laws and regs. If the parts alone were shipped out with a properly demilled receiver, or no receiver at all, there'd be no problem. I agree it's shitty of the ATF not to allow just the improperly-cut receiver to be turned in, but since the things shipped as a "kit", the whole thing is considered an mg and contraband. |
|
Since the Receiver is considered a MG and the whole thing is a MG because it includes the Reciever. Could somebody say sell off everything except the Receiver ? Then, when the ATF comes, give them the receiver...Then, could they use the money to buy another kit (properly demilled of course) ??? Just pondering as w/o the receiver the parts they are taking would be perfectly legal... |
|
Your position is correct, however, his is correct in certain circumstnaces. The problem is the injunctive provision that mentions any part or combo of parts that are intended to "convert"- that is the tricky part. If you have, for example, a lightning link that is home-made, that is obviously an unregistered MG (so says the ATF). However, if you have spare MG parts that are not intended to "convert", but only serve as replacement parts for a registered MG, I think you are OK. I think this is your position? This guy is living up to his name . . . |