Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/29/2003 4:45:26 PM EDT
anyone have any food for thought on the full auto drop in sears you see in shotgun news for $275 ?? they are supposed to be pre 1984 (i beleive)...do they work ? are they legal ? pre/post ban or are they class 3 ? it also says they require no machining to the receiver...stay the hell away from them ?? looks like an intersting toy but a little on the expesnsive side....thanks for any help...
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 4:54:47 PM EDT
It's a trap. Run far, far away.
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 5:02:56 PM EDT
you really think batfe is behind that ad? Oh yeah DIAS sold in that ad is for "replacement purposes only"
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 5:13:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/29/2003 5:15:13 PM EDT by thedr13]
If you alter any semi-auto to make it FULL AUTO and you don't have the proper license to do so... IT IS ILLEGAL! As mentioned previously, this is only a replacement part for an already Full auto weapon. If you want to shoot for a lifetime....DON'T DO IT!!! [stick]
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 5:43:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DEERSNIPER: you really think batfe is behind that ad?
View Quote
Yes.
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 6:21:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar15slinger: anyone have any food for thought on the full auto drop in sears you see in shotgun news for $275 ?? ......looks like an intersting toy but a little on the expesnsive side....thanks for any help...
View Quote
Expensive? Bwaw-haw-haw-haw!
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 7:02:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mario_FAMOInc:
Originally Posted By ar15slinger: anyone have any food for thought on the full auto drop in sears you see in shotgun news for $275 ?? ......looks like an intersting toy but a little on the expesnsive side....thanks for any help...
View Quote
Expensive? Bwaw-haw-haw-haw!
View Quote
The sad part is that in the 80s when you could legally build and register one people did think they were expensive.... Now, don't we all wish we had bought hundreds of $75 sears with the $200 tax stamp (total $275/DIAS)!
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 7:06:52 PM EDT
Staying WAAAY the hell away from them would be good.. John
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 7:53:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Quarterbore: Now, don't we all wish we had bought hundreds of $75 sears with the $200 tax stamp (total $275/DIAS)!
View Quote
I was far too smart to do anything that dumb !!
Link Posted: 7/29/2003 8:41:46 PM EDT
they work they are illegal they are bad
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 12:02:35 AM EDT
Oh MY! HAHAHAHA! That has to be the OLDEST ATF SCAM/STING operation in the book! They've been running that "AD" for yeeeeeaaars! Notice how the seller is J.A.M.......In Washington D.C.? something you would definetly be in if you tried to order one!
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 12:31:23 AM EDT
I actually have a friend that bought one bout 6 years ago. No midnight knock on the door yet. I think they are legal as long as you don't own, or have an AR in the house. Without an AR, they are nothing but expensive little pieces of metal. My advice is still to stay away from them. Unless you don't own or have ARs and have a ton of money to throw away on expensive "conversation pieces".
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 2:14:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2003 2:17:00 AM EDT by shaggy]
They're absolutely illegal to own if you have an AR. Its a felony; thats 10 years in the cooler and permanent loss of your right to ever legally posses a gun and vote ever again. Also figure lawyers fees deep into five figures just to try and keep you out of prison (and there's no guarantees on that). And yes, BATF has sent people to prison for extended vaccations for possession. They really have no sense of humor about these things. In the best case scenario, even if you don't have an AR, they are illegal to possess if they were made after 1981 - the burden of proof for which fall upon you (and no xeroxed BATF letter that they come with is going to suffice). Of course, that doesn't take into account the impact [i]US v. Cash[/i] will have in other jurisdictions. In that case, a US District Court of Appeals found that they are all illegal if not registered, regardless of the date of manufacture, because BATF does not have the legal authority to 'grandfather' and exclude certain machineguns from the NFA based merely upon their date of manufacture. In other words, if its not a registered machinegun on the NFRTR its illegal, regardless of when it was made.
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 3:09:56 AM EDT
I think they are legal as long as you don't own, or have an AR in the house.
View Quote
From what I understand, if the sears are really made prior to 1981, then they are legally ownable as long as you don't have an AR. The burden of proof is on the government. However, I guarantee that if you get caught with one of these, an ATF tooling expert will testify at your trial that it is of new manufacture.
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 6:03:08 AM EDT
.........and what was that gun used in HEAT [;D]
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 6:43:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Southern_Raider:
I think they are legal as long as you don't own, or have an AR in the house.
View Quote
From what I understand, if the sears are really made prior to 1981, then they are legally ownable as long as you don't have an AR. The burden of proof is on the government. However, I guarantee that if you get caught with one of these, an ATF tooling expert will testify at your trial that it is of new manufacture.
View Quote
The burden of proof to show that the sear was made prior to the 1981 BATF ruling is upon the defendant...and a xeroxed letter is simply not going to cut the mustard. Of course, as I explained above, US v. Cash provides a strong argument that places the 1981 ruling on very shaky legal ground. Judge Easterbrook was quite correct that BATF has no legal authority to 'grandfather' a certain class of DIAS's and exclude them from the NFA requirements based merely upon their date of manufacture. Thus, any unregistered DIAS is an unregistered MG, possession of which can be prosecuted as a felony [i]even without concurrent possession of an AR15[/i].
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 7:19:52 AM EDT
Burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. You say I punched you now prove it..... The police write you a ticket they have the burden of proof. WTF? Our legal system hasnt changed Longest standing sit. is innocent until proven guilty. In a trial they the prosecution goes first inorder to show the burden of proof. they have to make the accusation.
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 7:27:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2003 7:30:41 AM EDT by shaggy]
Originally Posted By 1ar4me: Burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. You say I punched you now prove it..... The police write you a ticket they have the burden of proof. WTF? Our legal system hasnt changed Longest standing sit. is innocent until proven guilty. In a trial they the prosecution goes first inorder to show the burden of proof. they have to make the accusation.
View Quote
Our legal system has not changed, but as a member of that legal system (I'm a lawyer), I can tell you its not as easy as simply "innocent until proven guilty". As I have explained twice now, the BATF ruling upon which that theory is based is of very dubious legal value since [i]Cash[/i]. I can almost guarantee you that even outside of the 7th Circuit, the logic of [i]Cash[/i] will hold in future cases. Frank Easterbrook is no slouch when it comes to the law. However, with regard to that ruling, the fact is, the BoP rests upon the defendant to make out their own defense. Read the actual statute as well as United States v. Cash, 149 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 1998), U.S. v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928 (5th Cir. 1997), and U.S. v. Just, 74 F.3d 902 (8th Cir 1996).
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 7:28:33 AM EDT
There is a great article all about DIAS's right here on this site. Follow this link: [url]http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/dias.html[/url]
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 7:38:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CAR-AR-M16: There is a great article all about DIAS's right here on this site. Follow this link: [url]http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/dias.html[/url]
View Quote
And with all due respect to James Jeffries, there is no discussion of [i]Cash[/i] and its potential impact upon the 1981 BATF ruling and the treatment of all unregistered DIAS's (whether made prior to 1981 or not). My guess is that James wrote that piece prior to Cash and has not updated it since. Read the last sentence of the next to last paragraph in Jeffries' piece. "In other words, you are not legally protected by a statute or a Treasury Regulation, but rather by an internal ruling by BATF which does not have the force of law and which can be changed in a heartbeat." Cash could effectively wipe out that BATF ruling in any juriusdiction in which it was prosecuted, and thus kill that defense (ie. that the sear was made prior to 1981) for a defendant.
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 9:47:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By IronBalaclava: Oh MY! HAHAHAHA! That has to be the OLDEST ATF SCAM/STING operation in the book! They've been running that "AD" for yeeeeeaaars! Notice how the seller is J.A.M.......In Washington D.C.? something you would definetly be in if you tried to order one!
View Quote
Yep, been running for years. As you can see by some of the posts here, this STING still works. Innocent until proven guilty/burden of proof on the accuser - that's rich !! Anyone who believes that has never been to war with the government.
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 10:05:49 AM EDT
[img]http://www.spyyard.com/images/handcuffs.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 2:55:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DustinA: [url]http://www.spyyard.com/images/handcuffs.gif[/url]
View Quote
You forgot to show the large penises cornering the defendant in the showers.
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 3:02:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/30/2003 3:03:21 PM EDT by M4_Aiming_at_U]
Hmmm Selling non legal DIAS but listed as a legal "Pre-81 DIAS" and being a government law enforcement body sounds a little like entrapment. Am I wrong?
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 4:05:48 PM EDT
Yes it does.
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 4:41:29 PM EDT
Hope I dont tick anyone off, but I do believe this discussion might be better served in the Legal Forum? Here's a link... [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=1&f=6[/url]
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 5:01:28 PM EDT
ATF atty: as you can see members of the jury, the defendant owned a unregistered machine gun (Exhibit A: DIAS). And although he does not possess an AR15 type rifle of any type, and cannot in any physical way make the DIAS itself fire any type of ammunition or projectile other than throwing this DIAS very hard. It is the opinion of the ATF that this "machine gun", is soooooooo dangerous, that the mere possession of it will cause the Sky to fall, and little Liberal children to will run in fear of a their lives. Hence we should strip this man of this rights and send him to Quantanamo Bay. Defendant's atty to ATF guy: So can you or the ATF in their infinate wisdom make this little peice of metal that is about the size of a quarter fire any types of ammuntion? ATF atty: No Defendant's atty: then how is it a machine gun? ATF atty: because we said so.... Who do you think the Jury would side with?
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 6:12:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By new-arguy: Hope I dont tick anyone off, but I do believe this discussion might be better served in the Legal Forum? Here's a link... [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=1&f=6[/url]
View Quote
Agreed. I believe all these legal and quasi legal topics should be in the Legal Forum. Also I've noted that by far most of these topics are initiated by users with low post counts. I'm sure this is just coincidence.
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 6:36:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 50Freak: ATF atty: as you can see members of the jury, the defendant owned a unregistered machine gun (Exhibit A: DIAS). And although he does not possess an AR15 type rifle of any type, and cannot in any physical way make the DIAS itself fire any type of ammunition or projectile other than throwing this DIAS very hard. It is the opinion of the ATF that this "machine gun", is soooooooo dangerous, that the mere possession of it will cause the Sky to fall, and little Liberal children to will run in fear of a their lives. Hence we should strip this man of this rights and send him to Quantanamo Bay. Defendant's atty to ATF guy: So can you or the ATF in their infinate wisdom make this little peice of metal that is about the size of a quarter fire any types of ammuntion? ATF atty: No Defendant's atty: then how is it a machine gun? ATF atty: because we said so.... Who do you think the Jury would side with?
View Quote
Its not about what makes sense or what a DIAS can or cannot do by itself. Its about legal authority. The law defines a "machinegun" and gives BATF authority to implement the statute by promulgating appropriate regulations as necessary, and making interpretive decisions as to what may be covered by the law. Such regulatiuons and interpretive decisions can include such issues as what constitutes a "machinegun" under the terms of the law. Certainly, the courts have power to strike down agency decisions and regulations, but federal agencies are given great deference in the courts with regard to technical decisions within their particular area of expertise, and there are enough cases regarding autosears that no federal court is going to invalidate BATF's position that they are, in and of themselves, subject to regulation as machineguns. If you get caught with an unregistered DIAS and plan to defend yourself on the issue of whether a DIAS alone should be regulated as a machinegun, I'd advise you to bring your K-Y jelly and lots of cigarettes to court with you...you'll definitely need them when you leave.
Link Posted: 7/30/2003 9:52:26 PM EDT
One of my friends was sentenced to jail for manslaughter. Several of us decided to go in and buy him a going away present. When asked by one curious fellow what we were going to buy for him we said a case of vaseline. The fellow quickly asked if we thought a case was going to be enough. And that being said, what ever you do, if you go don't run out.
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 7:51:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2003 8:00:16 AM EDT by RenegadeX]
Originally Posted By shaggy: The burden of proof to show that the sear was made prior to the 1981 BATF ruling is upon the defendant...and a xeroxed letter is simply not going to cut the mustard. Of course, as I explained above, US v. Cash provides a strong argument that places the 1981 ruling on very shaky legal ground. Judge Easterbrook was quite correct that BATF has no legal authority to 'grandfather' a certain class of DIAS's and exclude them from the NFA requirements based merely upon their date of manufacture. Thus, any unregistered DIAS is an unregistered MG, possession of which can be prosecuted as a felony [i]even without concurrent possession of an AR15[/i].
View Quote
I thought Cash ruled the other way, they were all legal, just as the M16 sear is legal. If it is the way you claim, how do they resolve the [i]thousands[/i] of folks who, prior to 11/81, did a FORM 1 on a Colt SP1 lower receiver, got the tax stamp, and bought a $75 (unregistered, unmarked) (SWD, SAI, etc.) DIAS (+M16 parts) from shotgun news and dropped them all in, 100% legal at the time? Are all those DIAS's now illegal? They have to be if what you say is correct, which is why I thought it was the other way. Since the Cash came out after 1986, these owners had no chance to just register the DIAS and become legal according to Cash, they are in effect, screwed by Cash. These guns, commonly called "married" are for sale all over the place, and ATF is still approving FORM 4 transfers.
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 8:18:25 AM EDT
I never heard of married guns. Does that mean the the dias and ar15 are not to be separated. What if they were? Would the dias become illegal. What would be the status of the gun?? All this is new to me. Lets hear more:
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 8:23:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2003 8:48:19 AM EDT by RenegadeX]
Originally Posted By ru-legal: I never heard of married guns. Does that mean the the dias and ar15 are not to be separated. What if they were? Would the dias become illegal. What would be the status of the gun?? All this is new to me. Lets hear more:
View Quote
In the old days (pre 11/81), this is how DIY'ers converted a Colt AR15 SP1 to MG status: You bought your Semi-Auto Colt AR-15 SP1 (model R6000 or R6001). You filled out ATF FORM 1, asking to register the SP1 lower receiver as a MG. ATF approved it. You then went out and bought the parts (DIAS, M16 hammer, M16 trigger, M16 disconnect, M16 selector and M16 carrier) dropped them in and were legal and done. During this period of time, DIAS was not a registerable MG. It was just like any other M16 part. Then in 11/81 came the BATF ruling all DIAS were MGs, grandfathering those made prior, like the one in our example. Folks stopped doing FORM 1 RR conversions and started buying RDIAS on FORM 4 from the maker/dealer, who registered the DIAS themselves. This now brings us to CASH, which states BATF had no authority to set a date, and all DIAS are illegal, which leaves said SP1 in legal jeopardy (as it has an unregistered DIAS in it), which is what I am asking Shaggy to address.
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 8:42:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2003 8:44:19 AM EDT by Quarterbore]
Originally Posted By ru-legal: I never heard of married guns. Does that mean the the dias and ar15 are not to be separated. What if they were? Would the dias become illegal. What would be the status of the gun?? All this is new to me. Lets hear more:
View Quote
As described above, a married gun is one that is registered as a machinegun. The form 3 or 4 will list the serial number of the AR-15 lower as being the machine gun.... BUT... the lower uses a DIAS as the sear that makes the weapon full auto. The ATF has said that it is illegal for these maried weapons to be redrilled for a GI Sear so the only way it is possible to have these is to keep the gun with that DIAS. Now, the pre-81 DIAS were at least partially legal because these rifles that were registered pre-86 could be repared with one of the older DIAS before the ATF ruling that made the DIAS a bad thing in itself. It is quite possible to imagine a guy that bought a spare DIAS to use with his registered maried SP1 lower. Historically, as long as this person ONLY owned the registered SP1 then the extra pre-date DIAS would be nothing more than a spare part like an extra USGI Auto Sear. I need to look this case law up when I get a chance as this does raise some interesting questions as described here! Edit to note: See what happens when work interupts your ARFCOMing? RenegadeX & My thoughts are about the same so I will leave my post!
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 8:58:19 AM EDT
I thank you all for your insight. This is very intresting. I wish I have been intrested in this topic back before 1981. I would surely have stockpiled a few crucial legal parts.
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 11:00:07 AM EDT
I agree, on this being an interesting discussion. If I had a time machine, screw going back and buying Microsoft stock. I'd buy as many of those little DIAS and lightening links as I could fit into a backpack.
Link Posted: 7/31/2003 12:17:47 PM EDT
I'm not sure what kind of paperwork the supposed company requires, but drop in auto sears can legally be purchased by Class 3 dealers and law enforcement agencies. Paperwork is required for these transactions though.
Top Top