Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/4/2003 6:16:32 AM EDT
Ive been shopping on the net for the best price for an AR15 bolt and carrier. During my searchs I have come across several sites where you can openly purchase all the full auto parts for the M16, bolt carrier, fire control and even the auto sear, all for about $200 or so! If its suppose to be illegal for non licenced people to have these parts, how is it that anyone can buy them? Is it the way they advertise them as replacement parts only?
Some of the other sites want a copy of your FFL before they will sell those parts, but some sites ask for nothing.
Any one know, I would be interested.....
By the way I found a site that sold the AR15 mil spec bolt and carrier for $95.....
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 6:23:58 AM EDT
Yes there are places that you can buy these parts openly. Ex. Ebay. And it is legal to buy. But if you possess an Ar-15 then you are looking for a world of trouble. Granted you will probably never get caught but if you do be on the look out for heavy fines and 3 square meals with bubba. The same goes for putting pre-ban stuff on a post ban weapon!
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 7:01:00 AM EDT
thebloke - M16 (full auto) fire control parts are are sold unrestricted as replacement parts for people who own registered M16's. You don't need a license to own an M16, but you do need to find one which was properly registered prior to May1986, pay for it (transferable M16's are starting at about $8000 these days), and then get a Form 4 approved from BATF. If you only have an AR15 (semi), it is not a good idea to purchase or possess any M16 parts.
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 8:33:37 AM EDT
M16 parts are perfectly legal to put in your AR15. So long as you dont: Own all the parts needed to make a full auto and an AR15 at the same time. (conspire to build) Own an unregistered lightning link, DIAS or auto sear. (unregistered machine gune) Drill the hole for an auto sear. (manufacture of machinegun) I personally run an M16 carrier in my personal AR15 and even wrote a nice long letter the the technical branch of the ATF describing what I did. The ATF "RECCOMENDS" you dont use M16 parts, but so long as you follow the rules above you will be fine. This is a long established fact. For example you can run an M2 full auto bolt in an M1 carbine but you cannot also own the fire control group.
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 11:32:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2003 11:33:20 AM EDT by shaggy]
It is incorrect to say it is perfectly legal to have M16 parts in conjunction with an AR15. BATF might not see it as a violation at the present time, or enforce it as such, but there is nothing preventing them from issuing a ruling or regulation to the contrary at any time. If you think you can beat it as arbitrary & capricious, my hat's off to you - good luck in court. But don't go stating its absolutely legal until you've won a declaratory judgement on that issue, BATF has issued a valid regulation to that effect, or the federal courts have weighed in on the issue. Yes it is true BATF has only 'recommended' you don't own any M16 fire control parts if you also possess an AR15. Of course that recomendation came in the form of an advisory opinion issued several years ago. And IIRC the issue was possession of spare M16 parts for a registered M16 being possessed in conjunction with a semiauto AR15 (M16 + AR15 + spare M16 fire control parts). It was not installation of M16 parts into an unregistered semiauto AR15. That letter issued by BATF is not law, nor is it even regulation. It is a mere opinion from BATF which can be changed at the drop of a hat, and without notice. And IIRC it was issued several years ago, which makes it of somewhat dubious value at the present time. Advisory opinions merely show you how BATF is thinking or how they might treat a certain issue if it comes before them at the time the opinion is issued. Times change, personnel in federal administrative agencies change, and BATF's opinion can change also. From that old advisory opinion, it appears BATF is not too keen on the idea of M16 parts being in the possession of someone who only owns an AR15. Personally, I don't see them as getting any less restrictive on this issue - probably more if anything. Under the law, BATF has authority to determine what constitutes a machinegun or a machinegun conversion under the law. BATF can and has changed positions on NFA weapons in the past, and will likely continue to in the future. For example, supressor parts and wipes could be purchased over the counter, completely unregulated for years. BATF changed positions back in the 1970's or 1980's and required any supressor parts (wipes, etc) be treated as supressors in and of themselves.
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 12:09:25 PM EDT
The issue of possesion of M16 parts was "posession of ALL parts needed to make a full auto" and possesion of an AR15. The example they gave was a full auto sear and and a full auto carrier. You can remove the disconnector and make a non select fire full auto AR15 this way. I have installed full auto parts in my AR and notified the technical branch of the ATF. I fear nothing by doing this. Its NOT illegal. So long as you cant create a full auto from the parts you are ok so long as the parts you have have no other use but to create a full auto. These would be auto sears, LL or DIAS.
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 1:42:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevL:I have installed full auto parts in my AR and notified the technical branch of the ATF. I fear nothing by doing this. Its NOT illegal.
View Quote
I'm glad you feel that way, but I defy you to show me a federal regulation, statute, or case where either BATF, Congress, or a federal judge has ruled that it is legal. So you wrote a letter to BATF - big deal, you are not the final arbiter of federal law or regulation on this issue. BATF (and ultimately the federal courts) are. So maybe you even have a [i]recent[/i] advisory opinion on the subject - its still not a substitute for law, regulation, or court ruling. As I stated previously, BATF can change that opinion at the drop of a hat and withut prior notice. You can't tell me with 100% certainty that that opinion, written some time ago, is still good and valid today (right this minute), tomorrow, next week, or after BATF has you in custody.
So long as you cant create a full auto from the parts you are ok so long as the parts you have have no other use but to create a full auto. These would be auto sears, LL or DIAS.
View Quote
which is exactly how BATF [i]could[/i] treat M16 parts possessed in conjunction with an AR15. You can play games with what you actually use those parts for, but it can be validly argued that the primary purpose for which they were designed is only to make an AR15/M16 type weapon go full auto. M16 fire control parts were not designed to be re-engineered to make semi only. Their original design and purpose is for SAFE-SEMI-FULL.
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 2:10:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2003 2:19:42 PM EDT by DevL]
Hey buddy you might as well give up all your guns too since they MIGHT be illegal one day. Today my weapons are legal. I am not going to do anything stupid to get thrown in jail but to be afraid like a little girl wont do anything to help the situation either. What you suggest is like telling a street leagal racer to not put on an exhaust kit on becasue they "might" create a new law where louder exhausts are illegal. By your definition of "safe" everyone with the firing pin ramp on the RRA AR15 carriers should get rid of them as its not designed to catch the notch in the hammer of an AR15. Oh year AR15 after market triggers are not safe either as most dont have the notch to jam your gun should the disconnector fail or be removed... If someone wants to know how to be a coward thats for another thread. They asked for whats currently legal and I told them. If you dont have a source of info that contradicts this (some new ATF ruling that MIGHT happen) then what I say is up to date. Need I remind you AR15s were made with M16 parts in the past from major manufacturers and those ARE, continue to BE legal and have never BEEN illegal. Oh and the reason companies wont sell you the M16 parts without an FFL is for liability reasons. No company in their right mind would just hand out those parts like candy. It would be inviting a civil lawsuit. But just so you guys know when I report of being arrested by the ATF I will let you know. That should give you plenty of time to modify or remove from your posession any M16 parts you have. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 3:42:50 PM EDT
BATFE has said that it is not recommended to have any M16 parts in your rifle. BUT, if they can make it shoot more than one round (with one M16 part) in an AR15 at a time then they will consider it a MG. Their was a letter stating this on Subguns in the NFA section.
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 5:06:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2003 5:07:47 PM EDT by shaggy]
Originally Posted By DevL:If someone wants to know how to be a coward thats for another thread. They asked for whats currently legal and I told them. If you dont have a source of info that contradicts this (some new ATF ruling that MIGHT happen) then what I say is up to date. Need I remind you AR15s were made with M16 parts in the past from major manufacturers and those ARE, continue to BE legal and have never BEEN illegal.
View Quote
And yet you still dodge my challenge. Can you show me anything that states it is 100% legal? All you have to rely on is an advisory opinion from BATF which states they don't receommend it. That advisory opinion, upon which you base your entire argument, can be changed at any time, without prior notice, and its already several years old. Personally, I like cold hard facts; show me statute, regulation, or good case law. An advisory opinion, especially an old one, isn't worth the paper its printed on. Unlike statute, regulation, or case law, it is completely non-binding. At least with statute, regulation, or case law, I know where I stand at all times and the govt is bound by them. With your letter, you might think you know where you stand, but because they can change opinions ay any time, you can't ever say with certainty. Personally, I don't care what you or anyone else does, but I think there's quite enough there for a prosecutor with a axe to grind to make out a decent case. If I can make the argument, they cartainly can also. And even in that letter its quite clear BATF isn't too pleased with the idea of possession of M16 parts with an AR15. Do you really think they've relaxed their views of guns and gun owners in the past few years? Of course, if you're happy with a non-binding letter stating opinions which BATF can change at any time, good for you. You must have a lot of faith and trust in the fine people at BATF who wrote that letter.
Link Posted: 10/4/2003 6:03:02 PM EDT
Just remember The world is full of shithouse lawyers, but it is your gullible ass which goes to Leavenworth, not theirs. Cheers!
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 1:48:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2003 12:26:11 PM EDT by AK_Mike]
Shaggy, DevL is right. I offer you a counter challenge, and to any other takers. Show me a law that says it's ILLEGAL to have full auto parts so long (as the law currently reads), that you don't have enough full auto parts to make the rifle fire fully auto, don't modify the frame, and you have no unregistered parts that are intended SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to CONVERT the firearm into an MG. The law is very clear on this, I don't understand why people have such a hard time reading it. It is only fear an ignorance that causes the naysayers to say it is illegal. One is correct to say it is legal (as shown by law), but incorrect to say it is illegal (haven't seen anything yet to back that up). Read the law, not your feelings. Even the letter of opinion only RECOMMENDS against having the M16 parts, so that you don't UNINTENTIONALLY acquire enough parts to allow full auto in an AR-15 which would be illegal. The pertinent law only talks of parts SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY intended to CONVERT. The RDIAS, LL, and such are intended SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to CONVERT. M16 parts are not. The only M16 part I would not own is the autosear as it has NO other function except to enable full auto. The other parts just allow normal function be it semi or F/A. If you don't have all the parts necessary to make the rifle fire in full auto, you have not created an unregistered MG. I again challenge any and all others to show me a law, quoting directly, that says you cannot have some (but not all) M16 parts in an AR-15. Unlike others, I back my argument up with THE LAW. Here is the law which says frame modification, enough parts to allow full auto, and parts intended to solely and exclusively to convert a semi into an MG is illegal. Definition of a machinegun law 26 USC 5845(b) The term ''machinegun'' means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and 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. And here is the ATFE letter of opinion (not law, but insight as to how ATFE interprets the law for the letter's recipient), stating it only advises against (not saying it's illegal) having any M16 parts. Note it only says COULD be in possesion of two MGs, not 'WOULD' be in possesion. Reference from: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter90.txt DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS WASHINGTON, DC 20226 MAR 29 2000 903050:GKD 3311 Dear Mr. : This refers to your letter of January 22, 1999, requesting information on the legality of possessing a registered full auto AR15 and also possessing one or more semiautomatic pre-1994 assembled AR15 rifles. You appended a number of specific questions relating to this subject which will be answered in the order received. 1. Is it legal to own both? There are no provisions under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) or the National Firearms Act (NFA) that prevent an individual from possessing an AR15 registered machinegun and one or more semiautomatic AR15 rifles at the same time. 2. If legal to own both, which spare parts for the registered gun can you also own? Any weapon which shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger meets the definition of a machinegun in section 5845(b) of the NFA. An AR15 rifle which is assembled with certain M16 machinegun fire control components, and which is capable of shooting automatically is a machinegun as defined. The definition of a machinegun in section 5845(b) also includes 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. Thus, an AR15 rifle possessed with separate M16 machinegun components can meet the definition of a machinegun, if the rifle shoots automatically when the components are installed. The fact that a person lawfully possesses a registered NFA firearm does not grant authorization to possess additional non-registered firearms. A person who possesses a registered M16 machinegun and a semiautomatic AR15 and a separate quantity of M16 machinegun components could be in possession of two machineguns. We advise any person who possesses an AR15 rifle not to possess M16 fire control components (trigger, hammer, disconnector, selector, and bolt carrier). If a person possessed only the M16 machinegun and spare M16 fire control components for that machinegun, the person would possess only one machinegun. 3. Is it legal to use the upper receiver off of the semi-auto AR's on the registered AR if they are different lengths and calibers than listed on the Form 4's? Before changing the caliber of a registered machinegun you should notify the NFA Branch in writing of the proposed change. 4. Can you have several short barrel uppers (less than 16 inches) for the registered AR and still own semi-auto AR's? The definition of a firearm in section 5845 of the NFA includes a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length. An individual possessing more than one short (less than 16 inches) barreled upper receiver for a registered AR15 machinegun along with one or more semiautomatic AR15 rifles would have under their possession of control an unregistered short barreled rifle, a violation of the NFA. 5. If you change the barrel length or caliber do I need to notify your office if the change is not a permanent one? This question was answered under Question 3. We trust that the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely yours, [signed] Edward M. Owen, Jr. Chief, Firearms Technology Branch Shaggy, no offense meant, but I have shown you the law, and the opinion, and nothing there says it's illegal. Where is the legal information that supports your side?
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 9:28:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2003 9:34:39 AM EDT by shaggy]
Mike, With all respect, I do know the law. Read my post again and show me were I stated it was illegal. The fact is, this is a gray area. BATF has weighted in on the issue with an advisory opinion - stating they don’t recommend possessing spare fire control parts for an M16 by someone who also concurrently owns an AR115 rifle and an M16. The issue of installation of m16 parts in an AR15 is only addressed tangentially. You rely on a letter which doesn't carry the weight of law, stating unofficial opinions that can be changed at any time and without prior notice and which is already several years old. Again, you must really trust the people at BATF. Personally, I don't trust them that far to bet my freedom on a written opinion which they are not bound by law to follow or honor. That letter is dated March of 2000, but can you tell me with any certainty that they have not changed their position since then? Can you tell me with any certainty that if someone does get caught, the AUSA will follow a 3 year old unenforceable BATF opinion on the matter? Nevertheless, let me point out to you the relevant phrase in the statutory definition which is the source of my concern: "The term shall also include…any combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun”. There are several things which by definition can be classified as a machinegun, but in that specific part of the definition there is no requirement there for the parts to actually be capable of firing more than one shot per pull of the trigger. It is the following sentence, which is addressed in the BATF letter, that makes a combination of parts which a machinegun can be assembled another part of the statutory definition (“and 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.”). The section to which I refer only requires the parts be “designed and intended” and “for use” in converting a weapon to a machinegun. So you have a multi-faceted definition of a machinegun and because BATF has addressed only part of the entire definition with respect to M16 parts and an AR15 rifle, you don’t think the other parts have any relevance? Never mind the fact they don’t have to be legally bound by that letter, they don’t even address a significant part of the definition. And you’re comfortable betting your freedom on that? Do you trust BATF that much? Good for you, but I don’t trust BATF as far as I could throw an NFA examiner (and if you’ve seen the SAR issue where they visit the NFA branch, you know exactly what I mean…) Now before you start to tell me that if it was a significant part of the statutory definition they would have addressed it in their letter, allow me to direct your attention to the statutory definition of a “firearm silencer” which contains a very similarly worded provision which includes “any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication (of a firearm silencer)” as part of the definition. It was under this wording that BATF has prohibited the unrestricted sale and possession of mere parts such as wipes, threaded endcaps, baffles etc. which although cannot function as a suppressor in and of themselves, are still regulated as complete suppressors. Those are some pretty significant words IMHO. And if you know anything about statutory interpretation, the courts try to give meaning to every word in a statute - it may seem duplicative, but the courts will try to give distinct meaning to each word or phrase in a code section. Additionally, let me point out the forgotten “readily restored” phrase at the beginning of the code section. BATF has been known to go to great lengths to show how wide “readily restored” can be interpreted. And as long as they can get it to double, you can find yourself in a world of s#*t because its "readily restored". Imported weapon kits must be properly demilled with three torch cuts of a specific width (of material removed). If not properly demilled, say cut with a saw three times, they are still considered to be machineguns. How "readily restored" to shoot automatically is a receiver cut into three pieces with a saw, as compared to an AR15 with M16 parts in it? Again, I’m not saying its per se illegal, but it’s a very gray area IMHO. I just don’t think it wise to base such a conclusory statement such as “M16 parts are perfectly legal to put in your AR15” on nothing but an unenforceable letter of opinion from three years ago when the statute and BATF’s own enforcement policies of related and similarly structured code sections seems to indicate it can be validly enforced otherwise. If you want to base your own actions on an old and unenforceable letter, thats all well and good, but don't assaume that because its ok for your level of comfort, its legal. All I'm saying is give people the full story and let them make their own fully informed decisions.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 9:45:58 AM EDT
I agree with your statement Shaggy.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 10:01:03 AM EDT
M16 parts are not allowed to be installed on an AR15 period. My friend owns a gun shop and is not allowed by BATF rules to posses an AR15 on the premisis in conjunction with M16 parts for sale without a class 3 dealers licences. Any M16 part is considered a machine gun as defined by the BATF. This is what I have always been told by every class 3 dealer I know. If someone has info saying this is not so I would love to see it. So if you posses a M16 hammer on your AR15 that is considered illegal by the BATF. Why do it any way? Who wants to do time for something that is not neccesary.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 12:24:18 PM EDT
Well when the ATF arrests me I will get the whole legality thing cleared up. [;)] I still have to have a jury of my peers convict me of owning a machinegun when all I have is an AR15. I may not trust the ATF but, I do trust my fellow Americans. No jury in their right mind would call a malfunctioning rifle, with the disconnector removed, that fires once and has to be manually recocked, yet doubles every once in a while, a machinegun. The interpretation of the law still rests in the hands of the American people and I place my faith in them. If all you do is cower in fear of litigation, you do nothing to help retain our inalienable rights as human beings. There are people who would not own a full auto carrier because they are afraid someone may not like it. There are people who would not own an AR15 carrier with a firing pin ramp because it can allow the rifle to double. There are people who would not own a preban AR15 because they are concerned with being able to prove that the rifle was assembled before the ban. I say none of these people are doing anything for our cause. Everyday I carry a concealed handgun, simply because I can. I often carry my assult rifle with me and when I bring it to a friends house I carry it in public view, in a non threatening manner. There are those who fear anyone seeing them exercising their God given rights but I am not one of them. Yes, I have had police detain me and threaten me with jail for breaking laws that do not exist. Yes, I am willing to go to jail in order to be vidicated and to know that the rights we are told we have, are actually still there. To this day I have educated numerous people as to what our rights are and if this is an unsavory idea to you then just dont try to stand up for our rights but PLEASE dont be on the other side of the fence and help our rights be whittled away by just telling people they should just hand them over because someone MIGHT take them away someday. Today we are still free men. Have you ever heard the quote "He who would give up a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserves neither?" Think about it... I am through discussing this subject.
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 12:54:49 PM EDT
Let me get this straight... You cannot own parts for an M-16 when you do in fact own a Class III M-16 so long as you also have an AR-15??? [BS2]
Link Posted: 10/5/2003 1:00:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2003 8:49:22 PM EDT by AK_Mike]
Shaggy, if you are not implying that it is illegal what is your beef? Even you admitted that the ATFE does not consider it illegal or enforce otherwise at this time, what more do you want? You do not need a court/legal document that states things are legal, that is self evident unless written OTHERWISE. Why do you want to follow laws that don't exist? You seem to think it is illegal unless defined legal in writing. Nothing is illegal unless there is a law against it. The letter of opinion is just that, as I stated, never said it was law. However, it is an insight as to how ATFE INTERPRETS the law themselves, better than peoples superstitions and wild guesses. It can also serve as precedent that a judge may consider, it would not automatically be ignored. Even if the letter is ignored, there is nothing in the law that says the parts in an AR-15 are illegal. One can only use the written law and written opinions available to guide oneself, there is no other choice. To guide oneself by using gut feeling, wild guesses, and fear based ignorance is not correct IMO. I still don't see anyone meeting my challenge to provide any hard written law supporting the assumption that auto parts (within the written guidelines) in a semi-auto AR-15 is illegal. I can say it is perfectly legal because there is no law against it. I cannot say it is illegal because there is no law that I can find supporting that supposition. Without referring to the letters of opinion, which one would be wise to consider as it is how the ATFE actually considers the law (at least for specific individuals) there is only the law I quoted, and it does not say parts not intended solely and exclusively for conversion is illegal. Just to use the guideline that something is illegal just because there is a chance that ATFE will suddenly reverse their position, or make a new law up in an instant is foolish. If you are going to use those kind of assumptions, you might as well just ditch all your guns now. Right now certain non standard full stocks are legal. Under the above theory, you better not have any non-standard stocks because ATFE could suddenly decide that they are no longer legal. No one seems to be making a big deal out of that. That to me is as silly as thinking ATFE would suddenly reverse their position on M16 parts. There is no current evidence to believe this. I am not going to dictate my life on the fear and belief that I shouldn't do something that no one has made illegal yet, I will wait until they ACTUALLY HAVE. I do not fill in the blanks with my own guesses as to what will happen, I use what is currently the law. I also do not fear prosecution. Just as you say there is enough for a prosecutor to "grind an axe" (though I simply don't see it), there is plenty for a defense attorney to successfully argue against it - simply by using the written law to back him up. If you feel letters of opinion have no sway, then you should feel no sway if ATFE writes one saying everything is illegal, correct? I say again, it is up to each individual to consider the law and his/her own actions. For myself, I will continue to use the written law, and abide by them, which means I can use some (but not all) auto parts in an AR-15. So far, no one has met my challenge to show me any law that says that it is illegal to use some M16 parts in an AR-15. I have backed up mine own view with THE LAW, and shed further light as to how the ATFE may view the law with a letter of opinion. However, I do NOT have to rely upon the letter of opinion whatsoever as the law itself says NOTHING about full autoparts not intended to solely and exclusively to convert, as long as I do not have enough parts to allow autofire or modify my frame. Clear and simple. Stop trying to fill in the blanks with your own pet theories, suppositions, and fear. If you are determined and fearful, just write your own letter to ATFE as many others have done, such as DevL. Again, this is just my own fact/law based opinion. I am not a lawyer. You must make your own decision. If you choose to cower in fear and ignorance, that is your choice, just not mine. You will be safer for sure, but you must decide how much law that doesn't exist yet that you will abide by out of fear. After this new debate, I am going to write my own letter to ATFE so that not only can I back my argument up with the law, and letters of opinion from those that use the law, I will have my own letter to back me up - enough to make me quite confident of defense in a court of law to a reasonable degree. Will let you know how that turns out. P.S. toddbiggie, I was also a class 3 dealer and I am telling you that ATFE does NOT consider EVERY M16 part to be a machinegun (I dare you to show me a law that supports that). Just read my above post which DOES state the law, there is nothing to that effect. You are using heresay from inaccurate sources. I am quoting directly from the law. The Bushmaster catalog is NOT the law if that's where you are getting your erroneous statement. They have been called on it, and admited they are wrong, but have yet to change their statement which I am sure they won't just to cover any POSSIBLE liabilities. The ATFE had no problems with my autoparts in an AR-15 when they inspected me.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 8:44:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2003 8:52:27 AM EDT by RenegadeX]
Originally Posted By toddbiggie: M16 parts are not allowed to be installed on an AR15 period.
View Quote
Other than Colt, Every AR15 manufacturer ships their semi-auto AR15s with Full-Auto parts. Been doing so for over 15 years. Since there are so many ways to make a AR15 go FA, there really is no such thing a a specific set of parts solely for FA. For example, if you have a fully milled carrier, and buy an SWD Auto-Connector, you need to also get a standard SP1 semi-auto carrier for it to work, so in effect, the original semi-auto carrier is now a Full-Auto carrier. See the stupidity of this argument? At the end of the day, all that matters is do you have the parts, in your possession or under your control, to make the gun fire more than 1 shot per trigger pull. If the answer is yes, you better have the appropriate tax stamp for each instance.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 12:37:00 AM EDT
I agree in general but I think that the autosear is a part (and the only one) intended only for F/A. Leave that off your list of parts, the rifle won't fire F/A (AFAIK), and you are safe. Keep in mind that ATFE can be tricky bastards, they will bash, jar, thump your rifle any way they can to try and get a non-intentional multiple fire. If your trigger/hammer combo double fires, get that fixed PRONTO, cause the ATFE might (as ridiculous as it may seem) consider that an MG. They seem to be satisfied if they can get anything more than one round to go off without having to pull the trigger again.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 7:24:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AK_Mike: I agree in general but I think that the autosear is a part (and the only one) intended only for F/A. Leave that off your list of parts, the rifle won't fire F/A (AFAIK), and you are safe.
View Quote
I was only addressing B/C, but now that you mention it, the Auto-Sear is pretty much a useless part, since it does not fit in a semi lower. All the other lower parts do fit, and if you have them along with a semi-lower, you have a MG. Better have a stamp too.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 7:32:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Originally Posted By AK_Mike: I agree in general but I think that the autosear is a part (and the only one) intended only for F/A. Leave that off your list of parts, the rifle won't fire F/A (AFAIK), and you are safe.
View Quote
I was only addressing B/C, but now that you mention it, the Auto-Sear is pretty much a useless part, since it does not fit in a semi lower. All the other lower parts do fit, and if you have them along with a semi-lower, you have a MG. Better have a stamp too.
View Quote
It's true the DIAS won't drop in the AR without drilling/fitting, but I think the problem with an unregistered DIAS and an untapped/drilled AR is "intent to create an illegal MG". I suppose the argument could carry over to a hammer & a bolt carrier, but that's a much harder point to prove.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 11:57:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By pulpsmack:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Originally Posted By AK_Mike: I agree in general but I think that the autosear is a part (and the only one) intended only for F/A. Leave that off your list of parts, the rifle won't fire F/A (AFAIK), and you are safe.
View Quote
I was only addressing B/C, but now that you mention it, the Auto-Sear is pretty much a useless part, since it does not fit in a semi lower. All the other lower parts do fit, and if you have them along with a semi-lower, you have a MG. Better have a stamp too.
View Quote
It's true the DIAS won't drop in the AR without drilling/fitting, but I think the problem with an unregistered DIAS and an untapped/drilled AR is "intent to create an illegal MG". I suppose the argument could carry over to a hammer & a bolt carrier, but that's a much harder point to prove.
View Quote
I thought he meant M16 Auto-Sear, not the DIAS. My comments refer to that.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 1:59:25 PM EDT
I get sick of the paranoid and poster children for the ATF.... Renegade go get'm but remember you cant fight stupidity
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 12:04:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RenegadeX: I thought he meant M16 Auto-Sear, not the DIAS. My comments refer to that.
View Quote
I was so you are correct. To install a standard autosear would require drilling a hole in your frame AFAIK and modifying your frame for F/A is illegal in itself if it's not registered as an MG.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 6:48:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AK_Mike:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX: I thought he meant M16 Auto-Sear, not the DIAS. My comments refer to that.
View Quote
I was so you are correct. To install a standard autosear would require drilling a hole in your frame AFAIK and modifying your frame for F/A is illegal in itself if it's not registered as an MG.
View Quote
Actually, drilling of the receiver would be manufacturing an illegal post-'86 machine gun. Unless you have the proper license and are doing this for law enforcement sale, military sale, or export, you cannot register it.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 12:58:24 PM EDT
Again, that's exactly what I was trying to say in otherwords - it would be legal if you are legally manufacturing a new MG that is properly registered and having the proper license. However, I believe you don't have to show that you are making it for Government entities specifically. I believe a C2 can make them and retain them as long as they have their license/SOT, no letterhead request is necessary AFAIK. Of course, if sold, it would have to go to LEO/Military/Government Entity OR another dealer with SOT.
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 12:16:29 AM EDT
thebloke So, who had them (ar15 B/C) for $95?
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 1:19:56 AM EDT
I don't believe it's illegal to have or buy the parts. It's just illegal to assemble a FA rifle out of them. I think. Hoppy
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 2:37:57 AM EDT
AZ-GUNNER, www.del-ton.com have the bolt ass for $95 for the AR15.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 12:55:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Hoppy: I don't believe it's illegal to have or buy the parts. It's just illegal to assemble a FA rifle out of them. I think. Hoppy
View Quote
Hoppy, that was really close to the mark. You are right with one exception, you can't have an AR-15 and enough full auto parts to make one go F/A, that's constructive intent (illegal), but if you don't have enough parts to go F/A (and they are all standard M16 parts) then you are okay.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 3:25:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2003 3:26:36 AM EDT by TacticalJonze]
It's worth noting here that it isn't a fair contention to say "Show me a law that says it's legal..." That isn't how laws work. Laws are passed to illustrate what's ILLEGAL. Everything else is legal. Laws aren't passed to state what's legal. And with that said, ATF (who has the legal authority under the 1968 Gun Control Act to decide such things) has ruled that if your AR15 has even one M16 part, it is indeed a machinegn. [b]ATF Rules about posession of M16 Parts in conjunction with an AR15, [i]EVEN WHEN THE OWNER LEGALLY OWNS AN M16![/i][/b]
"A person who possesses a registered M-16 machinegun and a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle and a separate quantity of M-16 machinegun components could be in possession of two machineguns"
View Quote
[url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter52.txt[/url] [b]Previously stated ATF position regarding M16 components in an AR15 in the context of a DIAS[/b]
"Apparently, there is no method to accurately determine whether the removal of the auto-sear will ensure that the AR-15 rifle will not fire automatically. This may occur since the M-16 parts alone may allow the AR-15 to fire automatically."
View Quote
Translation- M16 parts in an AR could be used to screw you, according to their stated position [url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter35.txt[/url] And the most recent ruling on this issue http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter90.txt So- No, Virgina- You can't legally have M16 parts in your Semi-Auto AR15. You can't even possess an M16 part, if you own an AR15. And if you have a letter ruling that says otherwise, i'd LOVE to see it.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 11:46:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2003 12:25:16 PM EDT by DevL]
And an AR15 with a full auto carrier cant be made illegal with modifications to the parts that are in it. Thus you are safe.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 12:27:04 PM EDT
You can pull the disconnector on an AR15 carrier too and it will double. This is not a machinegun. This is a malfunctioning rifle.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 12:31:56 PM EDT
You dopes translate what you want.. Simply put Having a few M-16 parts in an AR 15 DOES not and will not make it fire full auto. AND please show me somebody some individual that has been taken down for just that alon unless the person was involved in another crime. Land of the free and paranoid. More people sucked up by fear
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 12:33:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2003 12:33:48 PM EDT by DevL]
In fact the ATF example was posession of an auto sear, auto hammer, AR15 selector and full auto carrier. The selector wont allow full auto use. But if you pull the disconnector it will fire as a non select fire full auto. THAT my friend is a full auto.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 9:38:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2003 9:44:28 PM EDT by AK_Mike]
Originally Posted By TacticalJonze: And with that said, ATF (who has the legal authority under the 1968 Gun Control Act to decide such things) has ruled that if your AR15 has even one M16 part, it is indeed a machinegn.
[b]ATF Rules about posession of M16 Parts in conjunction with an AR15, [i]EVEN WHEN THE OWNER LEGALLY OWNS AN M16![/i][/b]
"A person who possesses a registered M-16 machinegun and a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle and a separate quantity of M-16 machinegun components [u]could[/u] be in possession of two machineguns"
View Quote
[url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter52.txt[/url]
View Quote
False. Read it again. It says [b]COULD, not WOULD[/b]. If it were illegal, it would say "quantity of M-16 machinegun components [u]would[/u] be in possession of two machineguns". Also, technically that is not a law, but a letter of opinion, but that's not my point. They are trying to say if you have M16 parts and an AR-15, you [b]MAY[/b] be in possession of an M16 because you could conceivably have all the parts necessary to allow F/A fire from the AR-15 with the parts. For the same reason, they only [b]RECOMMEND[/b] that you do not have any M16 parts to prevent you from accidentally having enough to be illegal, but they do NOT say it is illegal. Again, the LAW only pertains to frame modification, having enough parts to make an AR-15 fire F/A, and those parts (like RDIAS or LL) "designed SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY to CONVERT", which standard M16 parts are not, so the law does not apply to the standard M16 carrier. The ATFE letter of opinion only states that ATFE RECOMMENDS you do not have any M16 parts at all to prevent accidentally having enough to violate the LAW, but it doesn't say it's illegal. Read it for yourself.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 4:19:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 5:53:29 AM EDT
I'm confused now. I have an SP1 and have been trying to get an original bolt/carrier without the notches. These seem rather impossible to find. I did find one however but can someone tell me if its for an M16 or AR15, physically I don't see much difference. It has a smooth side, but on top it appears to be cut away, almost if it for a demonstration piece. Were early SP1 carriers like this?
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 6:13:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By az-gunner: thebloke So, who had them (ar15 B/C) for $95?
View Quote
CDNN is selling Colt M16 B/C for $99.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 12:00:54 PM EDT
Won't it be a hoot when BATF reinterprets § 921 so that all postbans are "copies or duplicates" of the Colt AR-15?
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 1:42:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AK_Mike: I agree in general but I think that the autosear is a part (and the only one) intended only for F/A. Leave that off your list of parts, the rifle won't fire F/A (AFAIK), and you are safe.
View Quote
An AR-15 rifle containing ALL M16 parts with the exception of the autosear is still capable of automatic fire. Granted it might be just a short burst if hard primers like those found in surplus ammo are used, but add sensitive primers to the mixture and you will get full-auto dumps. It is a very dangerous situation, as you may get a partial ignition and a round may become lodged in the barrel, followed by another round.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 12:31:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By M4Madness:
Originally Posted By AK_Mike: I agree in general but I think that the autosear is a part (and the only one) intended only for F/A. Leave that off your list of parts, the rifle won't fire F/A (AFAIK), and you are safe.
View Quote
An AR-15 rifle containing ALL M16 parts with the exception of the autosear is still capable of automatic fire. Granted it might be just a short burst if hard primers like those found in surplus ammo are used, but add sensitive primers to the mixture and you will get full-auto dumps. It is a very dangerous situation, as you may get a partial ignition and a round may become lodged in the barrel, followed by another round.
View Quote
I guess I didn't know AFAIK far enough! Thanks M4Madness. I wasn't sure cause I have never tried, and I am not going to [;)]. Even if it is short, as you say, that is ENOUGH for ATFE to make something of it in court. Malfunctions are malfunctions, but from what I understand, they have prosecuted people before for rifles that fired more than one round from a malfunction. As I have mentioned elsewhere, they will beat, slam, jar your gun, whatever they can think of to cause it to fire multiple rounds. Then they turn around and claim you knew it, and have it that way on purpose. Perhaps it is myth, but I have heard of such things. As far as M16 parts in a AR15, the only ones I might use are the carrier, and modified firecontrol parts or modified safety. It seems with few exceptions, the carrier is the only thing most people are interested in. doctorj77: Both Les Baer and J.P. Enterprises makes slick sided carriers (no forward assist notches)- both are shown in my Brownells catalog. DPMS may make one as well.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 3:35:59 PM EDT
Yeah, Mike, I've heard the same things. [:(] Back to the autosear explanation: The purpose of the autosear is only to hold the hammer back long enough for full bolt lock-up before striking the firing pin. If you have all the M16 parts with the exception of the autosear, the hammer will "ride down" with the bolt carrier and not hit the firing pin with its full force. This light hammer strike may or may not fully ignite the primer, and could result in catastrophic consequences. [:O]
Top Top