Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: FA FGC AN A SA RECIVEL LEGAL OR NOT?

  1. #1
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,618
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default FA FGC AN A SA RECIVEL LEGAL OR NOT?

    there is a discussion in the build it you self section on the legalty of owning a FA FGC (the ones that come in the kit) and a SA reciver or completed weapon.
    I was always under the under standing that as long as the holes werent frilled in the reciver it was OK to have the spare parts on hand. Others are claiming that having the parts and gun is illegal as they can be with basic tools be intalled.
    Does any one have actuall knowledge of the law here. I also see Intent being thrown around. My concern is if I was wrong any one who ownes a parts kit with FA parts and a SA reciver would be in violaton. I am looking for hard facts if any one has any.

    http://www.gunco.net/forums/attachme...stion-nfa.jpeg

  2. #2
    Gunco Maniac sjohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    7,452
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)

    Default

    Case law can change anything. Witness the recent Olofson case where a malfunctioning AR15 was allowed to be declared a machine gun.

    That said, the only situation I know of where possession = intent is with owning a semi AR while in possession of the auto sear.

    Nothing's been ruled (AFAIK) regarding owning a semi AK and being in possession of a complete auto FCG and the third pin.

  3. #3
    GuncoHolic 555th's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    3,295
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)

    Default

    Yes they are legal. I have the original triggers in my SBRs. The 3rd hole and notched lower rail is the no-no.

  4. #4
    Gunco Member kkcalvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    132
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Here is a case law from 6th Circuit.

    Personally I don't agree with court's definition "can be readily restored to shoot automatically" but unfortunately this is the law. According to court's decision a weapon that can be converted to FA in 6-8 hours is a machine gun. Which I think is BS. I could convert a bolt action rifle to fire FA in this amount of time (if I had the tools).
    Attached Files Attached Files

  5. #5
    tired of idiots vz58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    central NC
    Posts
    2,276
    Feedback Score
    25 (100%)

    Default

    you could build a sten in 8 hours from scratch in a machine shop. An ugly sten but an auto nonthe less. To notch the lower rail and 3rd hole in an ak about 30 minutes.....

  6. #6
    Gunco Maniac sjohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    7,452
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkcalvin View Post
    Here is a case law from 6th Circuit.

    Personally I don't agree with court's definition "can be readily restored to shoot automatically" but unfortunately this is the law. According to court's decision a weapon that can be converted to FA in 6-8 hours is a machine gun. Which I think is BS. I could convert a bolt action rifle to fire FA in this amount of time (if I had the tools).
    Please don't take this reply as a rebuttal, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. We all need to do what we think is best for ourselves.

    However, in the PDF cited, the eloquent dissenting opinion cites numerous other cases involving FA rulings that differ from the 6th Circuit Court's ruling in THIS case.

    Point being, this is case law, and by definition case law addresses a narrow view, that of the case at hand. In this ruling, the Court did not rule regarding ALL firearms, but only one - the MKS M14 model. This ruling could be cited in a new proceeding, but so can all the previous rulings, including those rulings in favor of the defendant. The sword cuts both ways.

    The fact that the 6th ruled against the defendant in this case does not establish a general rule of law.

  7. #7
    Gunco Member kkcalvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    132
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    No offense taken.
    But even the dissenting opinion states that if the weapon can be readily restored on a minimum amount of effort ($15 worth of easily obtainable parts and about 1 hr of assembly) the definition of "assembly" was not provided but other cases mention that minimum amount of machining would result in meeting definition of readily restorable.

    All I'm saying here no one should keep FA disconnectors in their original configuration. They should be modified to SA configuration. FA sears should be thrown out or destroyed. Hammers also should be modified. Triggers are the same for both so I don't see a problem with keeping them.

  8. #8
    No Hope For Me 1biggun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    13,618
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)

    Default

    I am glad this is being discussed. man good points from bolth sides.
    Now let me ask this. even if you were to modify the parts it to SA. the fact that you had them in FA configuration at one point likely can be proven. Like if I had a illegal machine gun and cut it up as the law was closing in you still would be guilty of having possesd a illeagle weapon. I know this is a strech but if case laws can be ruled differantly each time then having the parts and gun could possably be a proplem. I am more botherd that the law can be made up as they go. I cant open the link for some reason but 6-8 hours is BS. Also at what point does having imported parts lying around become a issue. How would this be viewed any differant.? having imported gas piston and a assembled 922 compliant fire arm could be conscrewd as intent to build a illeagle assult weapon. what would be the differance??? having a siaga and a pistol grip could the same deal. having a short pistol barrel and a full size rifle could be intent to build a SBR.
    Do the factory made pistols have US made trigger groups in them??
    Most guys are building pistols dont use US FCG,s they just use the original minus the FA parts since a pistol dont have to be 922 compliant.

  9. #9
    Gunco Maniac sjohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    7,452
    Feedback Score
    15 (100%)

    Default

    Right. How long does it really take to push out a 16.25 inch Romy barrel and press in a shorty AMD65 barrel? Certainly less than 4-6 hours, and no need for highly specialized tools or skills. Intent to create an SBR through owning a Romy G AND an AMD65 kit?

    As Olofson showed, if you have someone in the Federal system with a hard-on for you, it doesn't matter what you actually have. They just need a "friendly" judge.

  10. #10
    GuncoHolic kernelkrink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,976
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

    Default

    A MAC11NINE semi auto pistol has a bolt in it identical to the full auto one minus the notches for the sear to hold it back. In about 30 SECONDS you could pop the takedown pin and peen the firing pin in the extended position. Drop the bolt on a full mag and it will empty it, you just can't start and stop it with the trigger. Commercially produced and sold for 25 years+ without ATF ruling it "easily restored".

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •