romma
Member
New ones are outlawed because you can't get the stamp... Hence, outlawed...
Open up that check book if you want one of those too!
Need info for class: How easy to convert a gun to full auto?
- Thread starter TargetTerror
- Start date
- Status
New ones are outlawed because you can't get the stamp... Hence, outlawed...
Open up that check book if you want one of those too!
Victor Romen
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 94
M2 Carbine
member
It's easy to make most semi autos fire "full auto".
It's harder and requires some knowledge to convert a semi auto to SAFELY fire full auto or select fire and usually requires some machine work and parts.
It also makes a lot of difference which semi auto gun it is.
Some semi autos can be converted to factory quality full auto/select fire in less than ten minutes. I've done it (legally) back in the early 1980's. Some guns might take a couple hours to convert.
NOTE:
There's a good lesson here.
A quality "machine gun" is easy to make.
Which means that if criminals couldn't obtain factory machine guns (which they can) they could easily make them.
This goes to show that for the most part criminals aren't interested in machine guns. Using machine guns would bring VERY MUCH unwanted heat down on the criminal that was foolish enough to use them.
So no matter what the anti gun people say, machine guns aren't a problem.
It's harder and requires some knowledge to convert a semi auto to SAFELY fire full auto or select fire and usually requires some machine work and parts.
It also makes a lot of difference which semi auto gun it is.
Some semi autos can be converted to factory quality full auto/select fire in less than ten minutes. I've done it (legally) back in the early 1980's. Some guns might take a couple hours to convert.
NOTE:
There's a good lesson here.
A quality "machine gun" is easy to make.
Which means that if criminals couldn't obtain factory machine guns (which they can) they could easily make them.
This goes to show that for the most part criminals aren't interested in machine guns. Using machine guns would bring VERY MUCH unwanted heat down on the criminal that was foolish enough to use them.
So no matter what the anti gun people say, machine guns aren't a problem.
Fletchette
Member
Whatever you do, please DO NOT give some teacher (most likely a gun-hating liberal) any information on "why we should ban all guns for the children!!!".
Please just change the topic of your report. Example: how firearms in the hands of civillians formed the basis of the partisan groups that fought the Nazis. Or how firearms in the hands of civilians kept rioters at bay during the LA riots.
Please just change the topic of your report. Example: how firearms in the hands of civillians formed the basis of the partisan groups that fought the Nazis. Or how firearms in the hands of civilians kept rioters at bay during the LA riots.
damien
Member
I once had a Garand that had a trigger group part installed backwards - got it from the dealer that way. It fired a shot with every trigger pull and another one when the trigger was released. It was, legally speaking, a machine gun (2 round burst) until we fixed that situation with that part. Assuming all Garands work the same, you have can have yourself a machine gun by reversing one part.
Novus Collectus
Member
Ban all legally owned semi auto guns to "save the children", and criminals will just make their own.....and full auto is easier to make from scratch than semi-auto. That is what I tell the antis when they try that tact, and this is the proof I show them of just how easy it is for criminals to make completely untracable full auto from scratch using handtools and a hundred dollars or so of hardware store parts.
http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/introduction.shtml
That usually shuts them up. The gun cannot be uninvented be it semi auto or full auto.
Glockfan.45
member
The last time I looked sharing information wasn't illegal.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Not the case. Since the second shot requires a second motion of the trigger (in the opposite direction), BATFE has ruled that such a modification is not a machinegun; it's still one shot per one operation of the trigger. I have seen people discussing mini-14's to work that way, and it is NOT converting them to automatic fire, either legally or practically.
(IMHO, triggers that fire on release are abysmally stupid, idiotic, and make Happy Bunny look like a frigging genius, but they are not machineguns per the BATFE.)
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
Hmm...It may be breaking the spirit of the law in half but....if black powder guns are not recognized as firearms, couldn't you make a full auto blackpowder gun legally?
TargetTerror
Member
Nope. I'll stick to my Miata, thank you very much
TargetTerror
Member
So I had my class today. Things stayed mostly on topic, though a few anti-gun comments and naivety trickled out. I was very impressed with my Professor though. She cut right through the anti-gun crap and brought the topic right back to the specific legal concept in question. Since she effectively kept things on track and didn't let any anti-gun comments go without justification, I opted not to "correct" anything that was said. My Professor obviously wanted things to be related to discussion of the law rather than gun control (as it should be) so I thought it would be out of place to add a pro-gun interjection.
Some pearls of Wisdom from my class:
The issue came up of whether a gun is something dangerous/out of the ordinary to the affect that a reasonable should suspect that they might have to register it. (Here we got into how in most parts of the US it is commonplace to just walk into Walmart and buy a gun, and how registration is a relatively new phenomenon) One guy argued that because the AR-15 that this guy bought was derived from a military rifle rather than a sporting/hunting gun, that fact should have alerted Staples that it probably needed to be registered :banghead: I was really close to telling him that my "sporting" 30-06 was almost twice as powerful as the relatively feeble .223 round, but I restrained myself.
On the issue of whether Staples knew that the gun was capable of firing fully auto, another guy asserted that it was clearly indicated on the gun/fire selector that there was a full auto mode. He reasoned that Staples was therefore either lying about not knowing the gun was full auto or an idiot. (My prof kept this one on track by saying that whether he was an "idiot" was irrelevant so long as did not in fact know - he could be an idiot and free) I could have corrected him that the only parts of that gun that are visually indicative of the ability to fire full auto are internal, since the receiver was originally for a semi-auto AR. But, that would be off topic and didn't further the legal discussion, so I resisted.
One girl started her comment by saying that she was from Massachusetts, had never handled a gun, and of course would never own a gun. My prof cut her off and said, basically, "thats nice, you don't have to tell us that."
My prof then asked if we thought the court got the legal aspect of strict liability correct. One lady said that she hated guns, thought they should be HEAVILY regulated, yada yada. My prof cut her off and said that she needed to bring all of that to the legislature - it was irrelevant to the courts decision. I lost all respect for this lady tonight.
Some pearls of Wisdom from my class:
The issue came up of whether a gun is something dangerous/out of the ordinary to the affect that a reasonable should suspect that they might have to register it. (Here we got into how in most parts of the US it is commonplace to just walk into Walmart and buy a gun, and how registration is a relatively new phenomenon) One guy argued that because the AR-15 that this guy bought was derived from a military rifle rather than a sporting/hunting gun, that fact should have alerted Staples that it probably needed to be registered :banghead: I was really close to telling him that my "sporting" 30-06 was almost twice as powerful as the relatively feeble .223 round, but I restrained myself.
On the issue of whether Staples knew that the gun was capable of firing fully auto, another guy asserted that it was clearly indicated on the gun/fire selector that there was a full auto mode. He reasoned that Staples was therefore either lying about not knowing the gun was full auto or an idiot. (My prof kept this one on track by saying that whether he was an "idiot" was irrelevant so long as did not in fact know - he could be an idiot and free) I could have corrected him that the only parts of that gun that are visually indicative of the ability to fire full auto are internal, since the receiver was originally for a semi-auto AR. But, that would be off topic and didn't further the legal discussion, so I resisted.
One girl started her comment by saying that she was from Massachusetts, had never handled a gun, and of course would never own a gun. My prof cut her off and said, basically, "thats nice, you don't have to tell us that."
My prof then asked if we thought the court got the legal aspect of strict liability correct. One lady said that she hated guns, thought they should be HEAVILY regulated, yada yada. My prof cut her off and said that she needed to bring all of that to the legislature - it was irrelevant to the courts decision. I lost all respect for this lady tonight.
TargetTerror
Member
I also thought of an interesting legal question as I was walking back from class. I have seen guns with countless thousands of rounds through them wear out to where they will fire automatically for brief bursts. If you have a gun that was not designed or intended to fire automatically, and it is clearly a malfunction that causes it to do so (eg, I saw a Ruger Mkii fire full auto), does that gun now meet the definition of a "machinegun" per the ATF regs? What if it never does it again? Are you required to turn it in? What if a gunsmith fixes it?
I think I'm going to run this one by my prof. I'm curious what she will say.
I think I'm going to run this one by my prof. I'm curious what she will say.
Novus Collectus
Member
I would say that if one can show they acted in good faith in order to follow the law and attempted to get it fixed, they have a defensible position. But if they know it fires full auto and don't attempt to correct it in a reasonable amount of time, it may show knowledgible intent to own an unregulated NFA firearm.
I guess one could try a defense that it was not intended to be used in such a manner and is dangerous to use as such so that no reasonable person would intend to use it as a machine gun since it could blow up in the hand, but I wouldn't trust a jury on that one if it was me.
I guess one could try a defense that it was not intended to be used in such a manner and is dangerous to use as such so that no reasonable person would intend to use it as a machine gun since it could blow up in the hand, but I wouldn't trust a jury on that one if it was me.
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
I could see how this could come up. Some SKS rifles will double or even go full auto when loaded with soft commercial primed ammo. For instance: you could run wolf and surplus ammo through it and never have it miss a beat, but as soon as Remington is loaded it fires off the whole mag with one pull. Noone would want to do this because of the risk of out of battery fire as well as uncontrollable full auto. But if it happened to happen in front of the ATF you could be in just a hint of trouble.
GigaBuist
Member
I believe the operative word in the law would be that it has to be "designed" for full-auto fire to be a machine gun.
This video from the JPFO is worth a look. In it an ATF agent is demonstratin the full-auto capabilities of a seized FAL. It's malfunctioning, but he still thinks it's a machine gun. He can't actually take the rifle apart, but he can get it to slam fire on soft primers. Len Savage is in the video and explains to the agent what he should have already known.
Can't remember what happened to the case.
General Geoff
Member
According to BATFE, it is. Tread carefully, comrade.
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
I bet there might be some cosmoline in the firing pin channel. This allows the firing pin to protrude forward and hit the primer when the bolt closes. Take your firing pin out and clean the channel very well. I think Surplusrifle.com has a step by step.
Novus Collectus
Member
The ATF does not trump the First Amendment.
TargetTerror
Member
Courts have, for better or for worse, recognized reasonable limits on our rights (the classic example is not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater). Whether or not discussing how to modify a gun to become full-auto is a reasonable limitation on the First and Second Amendments is something for the courts to decide. Hopefully, reason will prevail and any case from the BATF on those grounds would be thrown out, but I don't want to be the test case.
The last time I looked, a shoe string wasn't a machine gun, either, but the ATF didn't always share that view. If the 1st Amendment were the final word in all communication, there would never be any cases brought solely for conspiracy. Yet, many cases are brought solely for conspiracy, and many times convictions are obtained. I'm not saying it's right or that it's Constitutional, just that it happens. If someone in the ATF decides to bring charges, maybe the accused will be acquited. You don't win by being acquited. Once you are charged, you've already lost; you just lose less when you are acquited.
Novus Collectus
Member
The ATF would never even try to prosecute someone on a First amendment issue, so there is no risk.
If there is some illegal activity in association with the speech like conspiracy to commit a crime, fomenting rebellion or even possibly suggesting someone commit an illegal act, then that it is possible what someone says can be prosecutable, but NOT talking about something for informational purposes alone. This kind of speech is protected under the First Amendement plain and simple.
I hate when people use the yelling fire in a crowded theater analogy when claiming our rights can be restricted because the only reason yelling fire in a crowded theater can be prosecutable is when it violates other people's rights not to be hurt by the ensuing panic that may result. If yelling fire in a crowded theater is political free speech under the First Amendment and there is no intent to cause panic and no panic resulted, then no one's rights were violated and so both the right to not be hurt and the speaker's right to free speech are both protected.
With speech here in this medium, it not only doesn't even come close to yelling fire in a crowded theater and the ATF would never get a judge to see it as such or even try, but the ATF would also have to show that much of this information that is also available publicly on their own websight isn't also illegal and a threat to public safety somehow.
Novus Collectus
Member
Ok, the courts have said the ATF has the power given by Congress to regulate arms which comes under the Second Amendment and that issue is Constitutionally debateable. But Congress never gave any power or even imlplied any power for the ATF to regulate the First Amendment or Free Speech and so the ATF has no power to decide on their own what is allowable free speech. You can rest easy on that one.
No one here has conspired to do anything illegal. It takes a conspiracy to commit an illegal act in order for a law to be broken and so here too there is no worry.
No crimes have been broken here.
Like I said before, much of this information is available on the ATF websight in their decisions....including, and especially the shoestring method!!!!
absolutely. A full auto Romy AK47 built from a kit might only cost $200 (parts only). Thats about a third the cost of a nice Glock handgun. As to "easy"... for a competent builder (i.e. nearly anyone with the time and patience), building a kit can be done in about 8-10 hours with typical tooling and a couple specialized jigs. So if gang bangers or other criminals really wanted to utilize automatic weapons, they would, and it would be (relatively) inexpensive for them to do so.
- Status
